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 direct the operations of, and act as general manager/CEO of, a Florida-based travel agency organizing trips, excursions, and cruises for U.S. and Latin American tourists.
Field: travel agency / tourism industry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Petitioner established EB-2 eligibility via bachelor's degree plus five years of progressive experience under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2); remaining issue was the national interest waiver.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner's endeavor appears to benefit his company and its clients or customers”
“The record does not establish how generating total sales of $398,455 in the fifth year of operation demonstrates substantial positive economic effects in general”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work”
“None of the referenced articles address either the Petitioner or how his specific, proposed endeavor may have national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“does not establish how the proposed endeavor of organizing trips, excursions, and cruises will have 'national or even global implications'”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“None of the referenced articles address either the Petitioner or how his specific, proposed endeavor may have national importance”
AAO decision text - resume experience · ignored
“immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong”
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
Notable
AAO expressly withdrew the Director's erroneous statement that the business plan was merely a duplicated industry article, clarifying the record did contain the full business plan (albeit out of order); AAO calculated average annual compensation of ~$38,500/worker to show economic claims were unsupported.
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)
- Matter of L-A-C-
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