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 establish and operate an e-commerce business in Florida selling and shipping automotive parts from the U.S. to Brazil, serving as the company's general and operations manager, though the record also contained conflicting evidence about a separate consulting or cleaning/construction business.
Field: e-commerce/automotive parts business (general and operations management) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO did not dispute, that Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Director found that the Petitioner did not establish that her proposed endeavor has the significant potential to provide economic benefits, nor that the proposed endeavor would have implications beyond the business's partners, clients, or customers to impact the field more broadly”
“the business plan does not explain the methodology used to make these projections; they are merely asserted without sufficient explanation”
“the Petitioner has not established that the creation of two jobs and revenue of around $300,000.00 would result in the "substantial positive economic effects"”
“these articles do not discuss the Petitioner or her proposed endeavor”
“The specific types of services offered by ... as well as its connection, if any, to the proposed e-commerce business are not clear from the record”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan does not explain the methodology used to make these projections; they are merely asserted without sufficient explanation”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“these articles do not discuss the Petitioner or her proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“These documents primarily relate to the Petitioner's qualifications and experience and do not help establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · ignored
- other · discounted
“the record does not support these claims”
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
Notable
AAO noted the record contained conflicting evidence about the nature of the Petitioner's business (e-commerce automotive parts vs. cleaning/construction vs. consulting), and observed that the Petitioner's appeal brief appeared to be an incompletely filled-out template, still containing placeholder text like 'SPECIALTY' and 'INDUSTRY.'
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. 103.2(b)(8)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- 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