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.
Petitioner sought to establish a Florida-based company importing and eventually designing fitness and training equipment (e.g., treadmills) designed in Brazil, for sale via e-commerce and national retail chains in the U.S. and export to other countries.
Field: fitness and sports training equipment / mechanical engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Petitioner established advanced degree equivalency via bachelor's degree plus five years progressive post-baccalaureate experience; translations found sufficient, Director's translation-based denial withdrawn.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we find that the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company to impact his field, U.S. exports, public health, or the fitness industry more broadly”
“he has not offered sufficient evidence that the area wherel I operates is economically depressed, that he would employ a significant population of workers in that area”
“The Petitioner, however, does not adequately explain how these sales forecasts were calculated.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“The Petitioner, however, does not adequately explain how these sales forecasts were calculated.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · credited
- degree · credited
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 also noted an independent, alternate basis for dismissal: Petitioner failed to execute Form ETA-750B, deemed a failure to properly apply for the NIW at all. Director's translation-certification denial was withdrawn as erroneous. Petitioner formed the company after filing the petition, undermining the 'eligibility at time of filing' requirement; noted but not separately 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)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 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