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 photography business owner with 16 years of experience, sought to expand her U.S.-based event/corporate photography company from one location to additional states, growing staff and revenue over five years.
Field: photography · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO withdrew the Director's favorable finding on the professional-association membership criterion (PPA), finding photography does not require a U.S. bachelor's degree as minimum entry requirement, leaving the Petitioner with fewer than three of six required exceptional-ability criteria.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“But we aren't evaluating the national importance of photo production companies, or even photography in general.”
“The business plan by itself does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized.”
“The Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence, aside from claims in her business plan and her own statement, that her company's staffing levels and business activity stand to provide substantial economic benefits”
“These appear to be hopeful speculation at best.”
“The remaining positive effects and national impacts the Petitioner claims relate to vague concepts such as benefiting art and culture”
“we conclude the professor's letter here squarely fits these scenarios where it warrants very little evidentiary value”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- certification membership · discounted
“it does not qualify as a professional association”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“warrants very little evidentiary value”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“significantly reduces its potential to have much of any impact in the industry locally, much less at a broader level”
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
- 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
AAO explicitly framed both the threshold exceptional-ability failure and the Dhanasar prong-one failure as independent, alternative bases for dismissal. AAO also addressed and rejected the Petitioner's claim that the Director had improperly reviewed the wrong file, finding the Director's isolated reference to another applicant's filing was a brief error not indicative of a flawed review.
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.
- Flores v. Garland
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
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