dismissedJUN082023_01B52032023-06-08 · appeal · 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 provide management consulting services—marketing, sales, and personnel training advice—to small and medium-sized brick-and-mortar retail businesses in Florida.

Field: management consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

Petitioner failed to establish exceptional ability under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii): missing proper official academic record, experience letters did not comply with regulatory requirements and did not relate to the proposed occupation, and awards lacked context showing recognition by peers/industry rather than employers. Only 1 of required 3 criteria met.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner has not demonstrated how conferring the benefit to their clients grows beyond their clients alone, who are overwhelmingly based in the State of Florida.”

“it is not clear from the record how this job creation for the proposed endeavor itself would have a substantial prospective positive economic effect commensurate with national importance”

“The letters submitted by the Petitioner were specifically commissioned for purposes of these proceedings and not contemporaneously with the Petitioner's business operations addressing the merits of the entrepreneurial endeavor.”

“Neither provides any meaningful analysis of the endeavor's broader implications or potential prospective economic impact rising to the level of national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

degree · discounted
“the original foreign language document is not present”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“The letters submitted by the Petitioner do not appear to have been written by former employers or representatives of former employers.”
AAO decision text
awards · discounted
“the awards are for his contributions to the companies he served and not from peers, government entities, professional, or business organizations”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“does not sufficiently demonstrate the potential prospective economic impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to their field at large”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters' authors are not industry experts”
AAO decision text

All 7 evidence items

motion resubmission · ignored
“The Petitioner's appeal repeats their previous arguments and largely resubmits previously submitted evidence.”
AAO decision text
certification membership · credited

Where this case turned

Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

2,501coded 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

AAO addressed categorical EB-2 exceptional-ability ineligibility as an independent, alternative basis for denial (rare procedural structure: 'notwithstanding their categorical ineligibility'), then separately analyzed and denied on Dhanasar prong 1 alone, expressly declining to reach prongs 2 and 3. Also flagged that Petitioner's individual-accomplishment evidence was misplaced under prong 1 and 'more relevant to the second prong.'

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. 103.3
8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
Matter of L-A-C-
Matter of Y-B-

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed both threshold EB-2 exceptional-ability criteria and Dhanasar prong one, since the endeavor's benefits were shown only to reach individual Florida clients, not broader national economic implications.

Transferable lesson

Support both categorical EB-2 eligibility documentation and national-importance claims with concrete, expert-validated evidence quantifying impact beyond direct clients or local geography.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer