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 planned to operate a Florida LLC offering corporate training and consulting workshops in leadership, empathy, and communication to business clients, drawing on her management/HR background.
Field: corporate training / human resources management consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO found she established advanced degree equivalency via bachelor's degree plus five years progressive experience; Director had not addressed this issue.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“these employment and revenue projections not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be realized”
“she has not established how her teaching or trammg activities would have broader implications in her field that reach beyond the participants in her workshops”
“the letters are not probative of the Petitioner's eligibility under the first prong of Dhanasar”
“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence that her business will be located in one or more HUBZones”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be realized”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not discuss her specific proposed endeavor or explain why it has national importance”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“considerations under Dhanasar's second prong, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
- other · discounted
“the record does not support a conclusion that this is an equitable comparison”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO corrected the Director's omission by affirmatively finding threshold EB-2 advanced-degree eligibility met, before independently dismissing on prong 1 national importance grounds; discussion of HUBZone program argument as an attempted analog to 'economically depressed area' is a notable novel argument rejected by AAO.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution