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 establish a Florida-based technology enterprise to develop an AI-powered, wearable-integrated health management platform to monitor, treat, and prevent obesity and obesity-related adverse health events such as stroke and heart attack.
Field: data engineering / health technology (AI-based health platform) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO agreed petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on a foreign equivalent bachelor's degree plus five years of progressive experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the articles and reports do not explain... how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to develop the technology enabled health management platform offers benefits that extend beyond his customers”
“the Petitioner has not explained the bases for the income projections and staffing requirements in the business plan nor does the record contain sufficient evidence supporting these claims”
“The Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence that his technology enterprise will employ a significant population of workers in an economically depressed area”
“the record does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“lack of supporting details detracts from the credibility and probative value of the business plan”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“the articles and reports do not explain... how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor... offers benefits that extend beyond his customers”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · ignored
“further analysis of his eligibility under the second and third prongs... would serve no meaningful purpose, and we will reserve these issues for future consideration”
AAO decision text - resume experience · ignored
“further analysis of his eligibility under the second and third prongs... would serve no meaningful purpose, and we will reserve these issues for future consideration”
AAO decision text - certification membership · ignored
“further analysis of his eligibility under the second and third prongs... would serve no meaningful purpose, and we will reserve these issues for future consideration”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- 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 expressly credited the petitioner's argument that he had provided a detailed endeavor description (reversing the Director on that point) and acknowledged substantial merit, but still dismissed for lack of national importance; also addressed STEM-specific policy guidance on national importance without altering the outcome.
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)
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
- The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
- The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
- The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
- The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod