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 proposed to operate his own facilities management services company in the Florida area.
Field: facilities management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Record does not establish 'facilities manager' is a listed profession under INA 101(a)(32) or an occupation requiring a U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent for entry, per 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2).
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not establish how the potential prospective impact of the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake "will rise to the level of national importance, rather than only impacting his clients."”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“does not reflect the Handbook's complete discussion of typical qualifications required of "facilities manager" positions”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“A motion to reconsider is not a process by which a petitioner may submit the same brief presented on appeal and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior decision.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
The AAO rejected the Petitioner's reliance on a selectively excerpted Handbook quotation, noting he 'copied and pasted' only part of the text into his brief, and it also rebutted his claim that O*NET has 'no connection with the government' by citing O*NET's DOL sponsorship. The Petitioner's motion to reconsider was denied largely because he resubmitted the same appellate brief rather than identifying a specific legal or policy 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. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of Coelho
- Matter of O-S-G-
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