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 planned to serve as CEO and senior IT consultant of her own company providing IT consulting and digital learning tools/software to educational institutions in the United States.
Field: information technology consulting for educational institutions · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; exceptional ability claim deemed moot.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“Much of the Petitioner's evidence relates to the importance of digitized learning, STEM employment and entrepreneurship generally, rather than her specific proposed endeavor to our nation.”
“But these projections are not sufficiently supported in the record.”
“she has not supported these assertions with sufficient independent, objective evidence”
“the submitted do not provide sufficient clarity regarding the specific endeavor that the Petitioner will focus on”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“these projections are not sufficiently supported in the record”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the submitted do not provide sufficient clarity regarding the specific endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“we do not consider the tenuous, indirect consequences of a petitioner's activity when determining whether it is of national importance”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“provided lends little probative value to the matter here”
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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
Notable
The expert opinion letter (Dr. W-) was found to conflate prong 2 qualities with prong 1 national importance analysis; AAO explicitly noted this distinction. Petitioner's preliminary due-process/standard-of-proof argument was rejected for lack of specificity.
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
- Flores v. Garland
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