dismissedJUN052025_03B52032025-06-05 · combined · Texas Service Center

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 operate a digital marketing and mobile application consultancy company, later also framing the endeavor around health services and telehealth.

Field: production engineering / digital marketing and mobile application consultancy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

Petitioner's two undergraduate degrees (3.5 and 2 years) do not equate to a U.S. bachelor's degree, and even treating the second degree as equivalent, she was awarded it in August 2019 and filed the petition in November 2022, less than five years later, so she could not show five years of post-baccalaureate progressive experience required for advanced-degree professional classification.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established

“Our assessment of national importance does not focus on the importance of a field in general, but instead "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

“While this article addresses the growth and importance of telehealth in the United States, it does not address the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”

“the Petitioner does not cite any evidence establishing the national importance of her proposed endeavor that we did not address in our prior decisions”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

degree · discounted
“These degrees are not equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree because a U.S. baccalaureate degree generally requires four years of education.”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“she could not have at least five years of progressive experience in her specialty which would qualify her for EB-2 classification”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“which we addressed in our prior decisions on her first and second combined motions”
AAO decision text
media · discounted
“it does not address the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
motion resubmission · discounted
“The Petitioner repeats her prior assertions regarding the claimed national importance of her proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor

1,312coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →

Notable

This is the third combined motion to reopen and reconsider following an underlying appeal dismissal and two prior combined motions, all denied on largely the same grounds; the decision layers a threshold EB-2 (degree equivalency and progressive experience timing) failure atop an independent national-importance failure without designating either as sole dispositive ground.

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. 103.5(a)(2)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
Matter of Coelho

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer