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 graphic designer, initially proposed providing consulting services to American companies on branding and digital design and training young professionals, but later shifted focus to producing faith-based comic books addressing youth social issues.
Field: graphic design / digital marketing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO noted the credential evaluations did not properly establish an advanced degree equivalency and it was unclear if exceptional ability was claimed, but reserved the issue since the NIW prong 1 failure was dispositive.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“Here, the Petitioner has not clearly identified his proposed endeavor nor submitted persuasive evidence to support his claims.”
“The Petitioner has not proposed a coherent endeavor that would encompass all these disparate and disconnected activities.”
“Being a "graphic designer" is a broad category rather than a specific proposed endeavor and using an umbrella term such as "graphic designer" does not unify these diverse activities into a coherent proposed endeavor.”
“Therefore, we conclude that the Petitioner has not provided a consistent and coherent description of his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“The Petitioner has not proposed a coherent endeavor that would encompass all these disparate and disconnected activities.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“included new reference letters from church pastors or religious leaders solely focused on his qualifications and commitment to his Christian principles”
AAO decision text - resume experience · ignored
- degree · discounted
“neither of these evaluations correctly identified any U.S. equivalent of a bachelor's degree for the Petitioner”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“stating that it is "considering potential financing support for the"”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- 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
The Petitioner substantially changed the description of his proposed endeavor between the initial filing and the RFE response, shifting from business consulting/training to faith-based comic book publishing; AAO found this inconsistency fatal to establishing a coherent endeavor under prong 1 and reserved judgment on threshold EB-2 eligibility and prongs 2-3, 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
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Ho
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