dismissedJUL072025_03B52032025-07-07 · appeal
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 establish a U.S. IT consultancy specializing in serving pharmaceutical companies, applying a proprietary methodology integrating CRM, ERP, and analytics to improve data management, regulatory compliance, and operational efficiency.
Field: information technology consulting (pharmaceutical industry) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS and AAO found Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional; not disputed.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“it is not apparent how the prospective impact of his work, research or otherwise would extend beyond the prospective employer and rise to a level that would be commensurate with having national importance”
“The plan does not offer any details showing [the projections' basis] or an explanation as to how they will be realized.”
“The record does not establish that the business would substantially affect the national economy.”
“The Petitioner has not demonstrated adoption of his methodology in the pharmaceutical or consulting industry or otherwise established its importance to his field.”
“the plan does not demonstrate the accuracy of its revenue projections”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“does not offer any details showing [the projections' basis] or an explanation as to how they will be realized”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not mention his methodology or its purported importance in the field”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“provide helpful background on the pharmaceutical industry”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the plan does not explain the "Churn rates" and "Recurring charges" included in its revenue projections”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
1,312coded 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
Petitioner cited a 2025 non-precedent AAO decision involving a medical research application developer to support his national-importance argument; AAO distinguished it on facts (adoption evidence) and noted non-precedent decisions are not binding.
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(c)
- Matter of Ho
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
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