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, owner and president of a travel agency, proposed to continue operating and growing her tourism/travel business in the United States.
Field: tourism industry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO previously withdrew the Director's finding that Petitioner qualified for EB-2 as an advanced degree professional because the evidence was insufficient to show five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience; work experience before her 2007 degree was not counted.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we agreed with the Director that the Petitioner had not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement for EB-2 immigrant classification because she had not established the national importance of her proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“their account therefore did not appear to be objective, and the claims in the letter were not corroborated with other independent evidence”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“her work experience prior to the date her degree was awarded in 2007 is not relevant to the determination”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the membership card does not establish that she meets any of the eligibility criteria”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“The document outlining her experience and business plan were also submitted and evaluated on appeal”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the majority was already considered on appeal and she has not established eligibility”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Notable
Petitioner raised a Fifth Amendment due process argument claiming AAO failed to evaluate all arguments/evidence on appeal; AAO did not substantively address this claim beyond noting it. A footnote also notes an apparent typographical error in the motion brief referencing another individual's petition, and a discrepancy regarding the claimed degree date (2005 vs. documented 2007).
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. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- Matter of Coelho
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