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 founded a company aiming to provide education and skill development in the life sciences/bioscience sector, and argued its growth would have broad economic impact.
Field: life sciences education technology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
USCIS and the AAO found the petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; only the national interest waiver was at issue.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the financial projection and economic impact report lacks sufficient explanation to substantiate the projected scope of the company in terms of the number of subscribers and users, revenues, market share, staffing levels and other estimates”
“we concluded that the evidence was insufficient to show the endeavor's potential prospective impact in the field of life sciences education and skill development”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“lacks sufficient explanation to substantiate the projected scope of the company in terms of the number of subscribers and users, revenues, market share, staffing levels and other estimates”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the evidence was insufficient to show the endeavor's potential prospective impact in the field of life sciences education and skill development”
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
Notable
This is the fifth adverse decision in the proceeding (an appeal plus four prior motions), and the AAO limited its review strictly to whether new evidence undermined its immediately preceding decision, declining to re-adjudicate the underlying petition.
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)(i)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- 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