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 manager and consultant, proposed to direct his own company offering financial and administrative consulting services to businesses, and to develop financial literacy and business education programs for high school students and other individuals and institutions.
Field: business administration and financial consulting/education · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO found Petitioner's Venezuelan Licentiate degree plus five years of progressive experience equivalent to a U.S. master's degree, satisfying EB-2 advanced-degree classification.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner's support letters praise his work, experience and abilities, but they do not address any national or global implications of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
“he does not discuss how such work would extend beyond trainees and individual institutions to impact his field more broadly”
“the determination of national importance does not focus on the importance of issues affecting the field in general, but "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
“the Petitioner does not, however, specify how his proposed endeavor would have substantial positive economic effects beyond the individuals and companies that may retain his services”
“The Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor would have substantial positive economic effects; or national, global, or other broader implications”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not address any national or global implications of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“he does not discuss how such work would extend beyond trainees and individual institutions to impact his field more broadly”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
- resume experience · credited
- motion resubmission · discounted
“Your motion does not provide new facts, nor does it give reasons for reconsideration supported by any pertinent precedent decisions.”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- other · discounted
“none of the articles mention the Petitioner or address the potential prospective impact of his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
Notable
Petitioner argued the Director's decision was internally contradictory and cited unpublished AAO decisions remanding similar cases; AAO rejected these as non-precedential and found no reversible error despite acknowledging some 'not directly relevant' language in the Director's decision.
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. 103.3(c)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- 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