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 found and lead a manufacturing company (producing items such as a product with a 'side overhead door' design), applying his business administration skills and prior boat-building business experience.
Field: manufacturing/business administration · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director and AAO agreed Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on bachelor's degree plus five years progressive experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“there is no indication that the Petitioner's "exjertise, skills, know how, and entrepreneurship" would be applied to companies other than!.__ _ ___. or its potential business partners.”
“the record does not include any supporting information regarding economic conditions in the area”
“the Petitioner has not established that this level of revenue, or the taxes resulting from it, would present a substantial economic effect.”
“neither of these brief statements is supported by evidence showing how these design elements ... would have broader implications”
“we agree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor of founding and leading al Imanufacturer is of national importance”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
“We also agree that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advanc~ his prlposed endeavor, due to his past experience in owning and operating a similar company”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established
“as the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor is of national importance, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver and further discussion of the balancing factors under the third prong would serve no meaningful purpose.”
“this statement does not explain why a waiver of those requirements is necessary to enable the Petitioner to pursue his endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“beyond the discrepancy in these figures and the lack of evidence to support them, the Petitioner has not established that this level of revenue... would present a substantial economic effect.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“speaks only generally about the benefits and economic impact of entrepreneurialism and the industry in general.”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“Eligibility for a requested immigration benefit must be established at the time of filing.”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Director's decision did not consider this evidence to be "new,"”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground
Notable
AAO clarifies that the 'new facts' standard for motions to reopen under 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2) differs from the BIA standard the Director erroneously applied (8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c)); it does not require prior unavailability, only non-submission in the proceeding. AAO also rejected a joint venture agreement as evidence because it was executed after the petition's filing date, citing Katigbak/Izummi/Bardouille on the retention of the filing date as the eligibility snapshot.
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. 103.5(a)(2)
- Matter of Bardouille
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
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