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, a marketing consultant, sought to open a marketing/business consulting firm serving small and medium-sized businesses in Pennsylvania, expanding regionally over five years.
Field: marketing consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner established eligibility for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional; this was not contested on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner's business plan does not explain how these forecasts were calculated, or adequately clarify how these projections will be realized, nor does the record contain evidence to support the plan's financial projections.”
“while ripple effects may signify positive developments within a narrow area, they alone may not suffice to establish the requisite level of national importance”
“The record does not illustrate how creating eight jobs and generating the projected sales in the business plan would have substantial positive economic effects on the level of national importance.”
“The arguments made in the expert opinion letter and letters of support relate to the Petitioner's past accomplishments and not their future potential to impact the field or marketing more broadly through his proposed endeavor in the United States.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“does not explain how these forecasts were calculated, or adequately clarify how these projections will be realized”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“these letters do not provide additional insight into the Petitioner's proposed consulting company or its national importance”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“factors that relate to a petitioner's qualifications, experience, or educational credentials relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO expressly distinguishes national importance (prong 1) from qualifications-based evidence, holding that expert/support letters addressing past accomplishments belong to prong 2 and do not establish prospective national importance of the specific endeavor; prong 3 arguments expressly reserved as unnecessary given dispositive prong 1 failure.
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
- Chen v. INS
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
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