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, a business development director, proposed to provide business consulting services to U.S. companies, including business process improvement, IT management consulting, and cross-border business development with Brazil and Latin America, potentially through her own company.
Field: business development / consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has not been clearly defined”
“the record does not contain sufficient evidence to substantiate them”
“she has not offered evidence in the form of projected staffing levels or hiring plans”
“she has not provided data showing sales or income projections”
“the Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the Petitioner's personal and professional qualifications relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“she has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or will create a broad impact without providing evidence to corroborate such claims.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
Petitioner argued the Director applied a 'stricter standard' of proof, which AAO rejected by reiterating the preponderance standard from Chawathe. AAO explicitly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3, citing Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the proposition that agencies need not decide unnecessary issues.
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. 103.3
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution