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 work as an independent trucking and logistics business owner, later claiming she would develop a mobile application for cargo handling in that industry.
Field: trucking and logistics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional based on a foreign master's equivalent; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“In the initial filing, the Petitioner did not describe the proposed endeavor in detail”
“the Petitioner has not established that her proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first prong”
“the business plan provides very little information as to the specific purpose or functionality of the proposed mobile application”
“this claim is not supported by probative and persuasive evidence in the record”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan provides very little information as to the specific purpose or functionality of the proposed mobile application”
AAO decision text - resume experience · ignored
“These documents do not describe the proposed endeavor nor help establish its potential prospective impact”
AAO decision text - certification membership · ignored
“These documents do not describe the proposed endeavor nor help establish its potential prospective impact”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“the Petitioner did not submit a credential evaluation to establish the equivalence of this diploma to a degree”
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
- 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
AAO noted the appeal brief largely copied language from the business plan rather than addressing the Director's specific findings, and declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 after finding prong 1 dispositive.
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(12)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to establish national importance: business plan lacked concrete details (app functionality, product 'TBD') making claims of broad industry impact and revenue unsubstantiated and non-credible.
Develop and document a concrete product/plan with credible, specific evidence of scale and impact before filing; don't rely on generic industry statistics or undefined future plans.
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