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 serve as general operations manager for his own U.S. company importing auto parts from Asia and South America and operating brick-and-mortar and online retail auto parts stores in Virginia and Tennessee.
Field: automotive parts retail and services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director and AAO found Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for the revenue and staffing projections, nor does he adequately explain how the revenue and staffing projections will be realized”
“he has not offered sufficient evidence that the area where the will company operates is economically depressed, that he would employ a significant population of workers in that area”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession where the Petitioner will work, but the specific impact of that proposed endeavor”
“the record does not include evidence indicating that D- is actually located in a HUBZone or will employ workers from a HUBZone or other economically depressed area”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for the revenue and staffing projections”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · ignored
- resume experience · discounted
“this documentation is relevant to the second Dhanasar prong ... It does not speak to whether his endeavor ... would have substantial merit or national importance”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession ... but the specific impact of that proposed endeavor”
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
Petitioner raised a preliminary due-process-style argument that the Director applied a stricter-than-preponderance standard; AAO rejected this because Petitioner failed to identify any specific instance of misapplication. AAO also relied on absence of evidence tying business to an SBA HUBZone despite Petitioner's HUBZone-based argument for regional economic benefit.
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.
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
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