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, a business development specialist with a Brazilian business background, proposed to provide sales, marketing, logistics, and business strategy services to U.S. companies in the natural stone and civil construction industries, based in Florida.
Field: business development / natural stone and construction industry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found, and the AAO did not dispute, that the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional based on his foreign bachelor's degree plus five years of progressive experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The updated plan ... did not clarify whether he intended to work for a U.S. employer in the natural stone industry or work as an individual consultant”
“the record does not contain information or evidence regarding any projected direct economic impacts or job creation attributable to the Petitioner's future work”
“he did not provide a business plan or any other plans or projections explaining the expected scope of his intended activities”
“it is unclear how the implications of his work would extend beyond the operations of his potential clients or partners to have national or even global implications”
“A shortage of qualified professionals alone does not render the work of an individual business development specialist nationally important under the Dhanasar precedent decision”
“the fact that an individual will work in a field that is generally adjacent to the subject of national initiatives is not sufficient”
“offers insufficient explanation for the author's assertion that the Petitioner is a "visionary" who is poised to develop and introduce improvements”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“he did not provide a business plan or any other plans or projections explaining the expected scope of his intended activities”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“offers insufficient explanation for the author's assertion that the Petitioner is a "visionary"”
AAO decision text - resume experience · credited
- other · discounted
“much of the content of the expert opinion letter lacked relevance and probative value with respect to the national importance”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“this shortage is likewise insufficient to demonstrate the national importance of the Petitioner's 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
- 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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
Notable
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor description shifted materially between the initial filing and RFE response (from hiring U.S. workers and running his own consulting business to working with/for U.S. companies without starting a business), and the AAO noted an unaddressed inconsistency involving an apparent typographical reference to an unrelated 'IT Specialist' endeavor in the initial plan.
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)
- Matter of Caron Int'l
- Matter of D-R-
- Matter of L-A-C-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution