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 sought to grow a consulting business offering entrepreneurial education, a proprietary software system, and professional consultancy services to small and medium-sized enterprises, initially in Florida with plans to expand nationally.
Field: small/medium enterprise business consulting and software · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualifies as advanced degree professional based on bachelor's degree plus five years progressive experience; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his specific, proposed endeavor-to provide consulting services and access to his software program through his business-rather than the importance of the industry or field.”
“the record does not include sufficient specific information or evidence to corroborate the Petitioner's assertions that the prospective impact of the proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance.”
“the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond the company and its clientele to impact the U.S. economy, entrepreneurship, or small businesses in the United States at a level commensurate with national importance.”
“the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond the company and its clientele”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“does not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, its potential to impact the field, or otherwise help demonstrate the endeavor's national importance”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
Notable
The AAO expressly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3, citing the agency's discretion not to make advisory findings once prong 1 fails; the case involved a factual discrepancy between the endeavor's claimed Texas and Florida locations, which the AAO treated as undermining the specificity/coherence of the endeavor rather than as a standalone failure code.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner conflated importance of the SME industry/field generally with the national importance of his specific consulting/software endeavor, failing to show impact beyond his own clientele.
Tie national-importance evidence directly to the specific endeavor's projected scale of impact, not to general industry statistics or field-level importance.
vague
economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic
person_focused
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