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 proposed to start and manage a U.S. company engaged in sports nutrition and health supplements, offering consulting/export training and attracting foreign investment to develop and sell new supplement products.
Field: sports nutrition and health supplements business · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Director's finding that the Petitioner qualified as an advanced-degree professional was withdrawn; the record failed to show five years of progressive, post-baccalaureate experience because the underlying foreign-language experience letter lacked a verifiable original, and other evidence (sales orders, business letters) did not establish full-time management for the required period.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“But the plan provides only generic job descriptions for these seven positions, and does not explain what these individuals would do in the context of his specific company.”
“But the CDC report makes no mention of nutritional supplements, and two reports from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) about nutritional supplements do not support the Petitioner's assertions”
“Evidence pertaining to an entire industry, field, or group is insufficient to demonstrate that a specific proposed endeavor meets the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework.”
“the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor is of national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- resume experience · discounted
“his concurrent ownership and management of two companies raises concerns regarding the amount of time devoted to his duties for each of them”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“there is no indication of how long this project lasted”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the plan provides only generic job descriptions for these seven positions, and does not explain what these individuals would do”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the CDC report makes no mention of nutritional supplements”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
Notable
The Director had erroneously analyzed eligibility under the exceptional-ability standard rather than the advanced-degree-professional standard the Petitioner actually claimed; the AAO treated this as a typographical error, withdrew the Director's classification finding, but independently found the Petitioner failed to establish the required five years of progressive experience (a dispositive threshold failure) and separately found the NIW's first Dhanasar prong unmet (also dispositive), declining to reach prongs two and three.
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. 103.2(b)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
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