dismissedJAN302025_03B52032025-01-30 · appeal · Texas Service Center

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 serve as CEO of his own company providing consulting, sales mediation, and regulatory-navigation services to help U.S. medical device manufacturers expand exports, initially to Brazil and later Latin America and Asia.

Field: medical device export 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 record does not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will result in broader implications at a level commensurate with national importance, beyond the direct impact to his prospective clients.”

“We acknowledge the projections in the business plan provided; however, like the Director, we conclude that the Petitioner has not provided sufficient explanation for the basis of these projects, or otherwise supported them with probative evidence in the record.”

“Additionally, the testimonial evidence in the record, including the letters of recommendation provide little probative value in establishing the national importance of the Petitioner's endeavor as they primarily focus on the Petitioner's past experience without addressing the prospective impact of his endeavor.”

“While the Petitioner has shown that his company's services could be beneficial to his prospective clients, this is akin to how the benefit of someone's teaching is generally only directly beneficial to the students being taught and not the wider population.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner has not provided sufficient explanation for the basis of these projects, or otherwise supported them with probative evidence”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“provide little probative value in establishing the national importance of the Petitioner's endeavor as they primarily focus on the Petitioner's past experience”
AAO decision text
contract revenue · discounted
“the letters do not establish how those partnerships will lead to broader implications to the industry at a level commensurate with national importance”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“his endeavor's alignment with federal initiatives may speak to the substantial merit of the endeavor, but it does not establish the specific endeavor's potential prospective impact”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

2,501coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →

Notable

AAO rejected Petitioner's argument that the Director applied a heightened standard or failed to warn of 'general assertions' deficiency via RFE, noting the appeal itself offered an opportunity to supplement the record which Petitioner did not use. AAO expressly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3, citing INS v. Bagamasbad.

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
Flores v. Garland

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer