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, who operates a U.S. branch of a Brazilian textile manufacturing company, proposed to open a warehouse in Florida to import, process, and sell textile products, creating jobs and expanding his import/export business.
Field: textile import and distribution business · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“Much of the evidence of record related to the Petitioner's endeavor does not discuss the Petitioner's specific intentions, but is general in nature”
“the origins of the figures presented are not clear, and the record does not contain other objective evidence to support the estimates forecasted”
“he does not identify the source of this investment beyond speculation that profits from the company will be invested into the company”
“The evidence of record does not demonstrate that the endeavor realistically has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic benefits”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan is not supported by evidence showing how the business's growth projections will be realized”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“The record includes several articles discussing immigrant entrepreneurship, as well as a report on the airline industry.”
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
Petitioner argued generally that USCIS 'erroneously denied' the petition and applied a stricter standard than preponderance of the evidence, but AAO found these assertions unsupported by specifics, citing the requirement under 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(1)(v) that appeals must specifically identify errors.
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
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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