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 planned to operate a Florida-based company building and repairing screen enclosures, sunrooms, and porch enclosures, later revised to also offer civil engineering consulting, condominium advisory services, and professional training courses.
Field: civil engineering / construction · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO withdrew the Director's finding of exceptional-ability eligibility, concluding the record did not satisfy 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F) (recognition for achievements/significant contributions) and that no final merits determination had been conducted.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the evidence does not support such assertions or otherwise establish that his endeavor will directly result in broader implications to the field, beyond the impact to his immediate customers”
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value.”
“the pertinent question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
“Notably, the Petitioner provides no explanation for the basis of his employment and revenue projections.”
“the Petitioner did not sufficiently explain and support with evidence how his proposed endeavor would have a national impact on these broad government initiatives”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“Unsupported assertions and speculation have no evidentiary value and are insufficient to establish a filing party has satisfied their burden of proof.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters only provide recognition of the Petitioner's general contributions to his employer and their customers, not to the industry in general”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the pertinent question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the Petitioner provides no explanation for the basis of his employment and 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
- 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
AAO faulted the Petitioner for failing to identify specific errors in the Director's decision on appeal (citing Matter of Valencia), calling this alone grounds for dismissal, but proceeded to address the merits anyway. AAO also sua sponte withdrew the Director's favorable exceptional-ability finding despite the appeal already being dispositive on prong one, instructing Petitioner to address this in future filings.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to show the specific endeavor (screen enclosure/consulting business) had broader implications beyond direct customers, relying on unsupported projections and generic industry/government-interest statistics rather than endeavor-specific impact.
Tie concrete, corroborated metrics (jobs, revenue, scale) directly to the specific endeavor's broader field/regional impact, not to industry-wide importance or unexplained projections.
moderate
economic_job_creation · critical_emerging_tech · stem_positive_factor · field_advancement · economic_growth_generic
mixed
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