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, co-owner and general manager of a moving and storage business he founded in Washington in 2017, proposed to continue managing and expand the business into additional western states, Texas, and New York.
Field: moving and storage / logistics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO found Petitioner did not establish at least three of six exceptional-ability criteria: his commercial driver's license had expired and his Washington driver's license was not occupation-specific (license criterion), and his professional-association membership certificates were issued to his business rather than to him personally, with no showing the organizations required a bachelor's degree for membership (association criterion). Having failed at least two of the three criteria the Director had credited, the Petitioner did not meet the minimum three criteria required, so no final merits determination was conducted.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The evidence does not suggest that the Petitioner's work as general manager for his moving and storage business would impact his field more broadly.”
“The Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence to support his claims that his business' future staffing levels and business activities stand to provide substantial economic benefits to Washington or the United States.”
“the record does not sufficiently detail the basis for the plan's financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized”
“Instead of focusing on the importance of an industry or field, or a shortage of workers in a field, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
“merely working in the moving services field or starting a moving and storage business is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the opinion's reliance on the Petitioner's professional experience and knowledge to establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor is misplaced”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the record does not sufficiently detail the basis for the plan's financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“The Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence to support his claims that his business' future staffing levels and business activities stand to provide substantial economic benefits”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner did not submit evidence that he, instead of his business, is a member of either organization”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“The articles submitted do not discuss any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation specifically attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
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
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
Notable
AAO acknowledged the Director made factual errors (misstating the business's location as New York and calling it a 'future' business), but held these were harmless because they did not affect the basis for denial, citing Matter of O-R-E- on harmless error.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of O-R-E-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to show national importance under Dhanasar prong 1: evidence tied only to his own business/clients and industry generally, not to broader field impact or substantiated economic scale.
Tie endeavor-specific, corroborated evidence of broad economic or field-wide impact (not just industry importance or personal credentials) directly to national importance prong.
vague
economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · field_advancement
person_focused
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