This is an AAO appeal decision — a case denied once and appealed. It shows how the framework is applied; it is not the filing population.
The Petitioner, who listed his occupation as 'entrepreneur,' proposed an endeavor related to expanding access to higher education, which he claimed would promote job creation and serve the U.S. national interest, though his specific role in the endeavor was unclear.
Field: higher education / entrepreneurship (unspecified) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner did not establish that he is a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 'Entrepreneur' was not found to be a profession with an established educational requirement, his role in the proposed endeavor (inventor, creator, or educator) was unclear, and his claimed master's degree was not corroborated by an official diploma or transcript nor supported by a persuasive equivalency evaluation.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the record still lacks evidence of an official academic record for the Petitioner, such as a diploma or transcript”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“We acknowledge the content of this letter, however, the record still lacks evidence of an official academic record”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the evidence submitted by the Petitioner does not sufficiently address the evidentiary deficiencies listed in our initial decision”
AAO decision text
This record is one of thousands, each coded for the reasons it turned. A placement shows where your profile sits in that record, not what it predicts. See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
This is a motion to reopen following a prior AAO appellate dismissal; the AAO's threshold finding that the Petitioner failed to establish he is an advanced-degree professional was dispositive, so it again declined to reach the national interest waiver prongs, citing INS v. Bagamasbad's rule against purely advisory findings. The occupation 'entrepreneur' was found not to constitute a profession under the regulatory definition.
Authorities this decision leans on
From the doctrinal survivor set — 187 authority tests across 47 distinct authorities cleared the differential-lift gates. Only those appear here.
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- Matter of Coelho
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers