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, a security services specialist, proposed to establish his own U.S.-based private security training and consulting firm offering personal, property, residential, and corporate security services, as well as cybersecurity and international travel advisory services.
Field: private security services / law enforcement consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner's Brazilian military diploma, technologist certificate, and specialist certificate did not amount to a single foreign equivalent bachelor's degree; the submitted credential evaluation was found unreliable and contradicted by other record evidence, and EDGE database findings confirmed the credentials fell short of a bachelor's degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, sector, or profession in which the individual will work”
“The business plan does not corroborate the job creation claims that the Petitioner makes on appeal.”
“the job creation and revenue projections included in the Petitioner's business plan are not supported by details showing their basis”
“he has not suggested that his proposed endeavor would lessen the shortage of trained security professionals on a scale rising to the level of national importance”
“the submitted recommendation letters do not contain sufficient detail to corroborate this claimed impact”
“much of the content of the expert opinion letter lacked relevance and probative value with respect to the national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the record does not support the evaluator's opinion that the Petitioner completed four years of post-secondary education”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the job creation and revenue projections included in the Petitioner's business plan are not supported by details showing their basis”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the submitted recommendation letters do not contain sufficient detail to corroborate this claimed impact”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“the record does not provide adequate support for a determination that his specific proposed endeavor will have such a wide-reaching impact”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“much of the content of the expert opinion letter lacked relevance and probative value with respect to the national importance”
AAO decision text
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
- 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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
Notable
The AAO withdrew the Director's favorable threshold EB-2 determination sua sponte, finding the Petitioner's foreign credentials (military diploma, technologist and specialist certificates) did not equate to a single bachelor's degree, and discredited the submitted credential evaluation as unreliable/contradicted by other evidence. The decision explicitly states both the threshold failure and the prong 1 failure are independent and alternate bases for dismissal. The AAO also corrected the Petitioner's job-creation figures on appeal (192 jobs claimed vs. 81 in the actual business plan) and rejected the Petitioner's HUBZone/economically-depressed-area argument since the business plan never mentioned HUBZone participation.
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 Caron Int'l
- Matter of D-R-
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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