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 grow his own digital marketing consulting firm in Florida, offering services such as market research, branding, SEO, and social media strategy, with plans to expand to regional offices in Georgia and Texas.
Field: digital marketing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Record supports Director's finding that Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on bachelor's equivalent plus five years progressive experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not shown how his proposed endeavor would have broader implications within his field that would reach beyond clients utilizing his services”
“the direct employment, indirect job creation, and revenue projections included in the Petitioner's business plan are not supported by details showing their basis”
“the Petitioner has not established that this addition to the workforce in any of the three locations, including the claimed HUBZone region, would be of sufficient significance to rise to the level of national importance”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, sector, or profession in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the direct employment, indirect 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 Petitioner's expertise acquired through his academic and professional career primarily relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, sector, or profession in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“A determination regarding the claimed national importance of a specific proposed endeavor cannot be inferred based on the Petitioner's past accomplishments”
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 treated the appeal as self-represented due to an improperly executed Form G-28 (auto-pen signature) despite the Petitioner presumably having counsel; the HUBZone argument was rejected because the business plan itself made no mention of the HUBZone program despite the Petitioner's location falling within one.
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
- 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