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 operate a Florida-based company building and selling residential condominiums and townhouses, targeting retirees, families, tourists, and foreign investors.
Field: residential construction / civil engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO withdrew Director's finding; found Petitioner established advanced degree equivalency via bachelor's degree plus five years progressive experience based on work experience letters.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“merely working in an important field or profession is insufficient to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
“these employment and revenue projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be realized”
“the record does not support a determination that any direct or indirect benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
“he has not indicated that he intends to disseminate his processes or methods or shown how they would extend beyond his own projects to have broader implications for the industry”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“these employment and revenue projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be realized”
AAO decision text - resume experience · credited
- recommendation letter · discounted
“none of the authors further elaborate or identify specific engineering or process innovations that can be attributed to the Petitioner”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“neither author directly addresses the potential indirect economic impact of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“he has not explained or demonstrated that the townhomes he intends to build there... would be marketed to and accessible for the region's low-income households”
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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO withdrew the Director's threshold advanced-degree denial (crediting self-employment/partnership experience letters) but still dismissed on Dhanasar prong 1, finding the residential construction business's economic and industry-impact claims (ripple effects, 'new process' of construction, distressed-area investment) unsupported; declined to reach prong 3.
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)
- Flores v. Garland
- 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