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 software developer, proposed to found and run an LLC providing digital interior design consulting, 3D visualization, virtual reality tours, and related software solutions to homeowners, businesses, and construction companies in New York.
Field: software development / information technology (interior design technology) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found, and AAO agreed, that the Petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“Our assessment of national importance does not focus on the importance of a field or occupation in general, but instead "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
“The business plan does not state how these projections were made and the Petitioner did not submit evidence that this level of income and the employment of six people would have a substantial positive economic effect in New York.”
“the Petitioner has not established that her proposed endeavor would sufficiently extend beyond her individual clientele to impact her field more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance”
“they do not address her specific proposed endeavor”
“The business plan does not discuss how these tools are innovative or will otherwise have national or even global implications in her field.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“The business plan does not state how these projections were made”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“do not address her specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
- other · discounted
“Eligibility must be established at the time of filing.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“praise the Petitioner's past work and qualifications and express their confidence in her ability to succeed in the future”
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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
The Petitioner argued that Matter of Dhanasar should not bind the AAO because its framework is not statutory; the AAO rejected this, citing 8 C.F.R. 103.10(b) on the binding nature of precedent decisions. The AAO also excluded post-filing evidence (Articles of Organization and investor letters dated after the petition's filing) under the Katigbak eligibility-at-time-of-filing rule.
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)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- Matter of Katigbak
- 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