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 sought to develop and expand his own company intended to act as a 'one-stop-shop' linking donors with social causes, helping nonprofit organizations improve their marketing and fundraising strategies.
Field: sales and marketing / nonprofit business consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The record contained inconsistent transcripts (177 vs. 190 credits) from the same Brazilian university and failed to establish that the Petitioner completed a four-year degree program equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree, undermining his claim to advanced-degree professional classification.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not establish that the Petitioner's endeavor would have broad implications on a national or global scale”
“it does not adequately explain how these forecasts were calculated”
“the personnel and income projections that the Petitioner provided in his business plan are not sufficient to demonstrate substantial positive economic impact that would be broadly felt on a national or global scale”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employees and clientele to impact the nonprofit business consulting industry at a level commensurate with national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“it does not adequately explain how these forecasts were calculated”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's skills, knowledge, and experience in his field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“these documents do not establish that he graduated from a four-year program”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“The record therefore supports the Director's determination that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit; however, the endeavor's substantial merit notwithstanding, the Petitioner has not established that his endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO withdrew the Director's favorable threshold finding sua sponte due to inconsistent academic transcripts from a prior petition, even though the case turned dispositively on prong 1 national importance; the decision cites AACRAO EDGE as a credential-equivalency source and a prior denied petition by the same petitioner.
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 Ho
- 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