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 operate a U.S.-based company selling prescription and nonprescription eyewear online, with plans to eventually expand to independent shops and national chains.
Field: eyewear retail entrepreneurship · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner established EB-2 advanced degree eligibility; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we do not consider the impact of the industry, field, or economic sector in which they propose to engage”
“So the articles and reports, which do not discuss in particular, do not support the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
“These conflicting statements in business plan undermine the Petitioner's claim that its potential for job creation show her endeavor's national importance.”
“statistics about the global eyewear industry and articles about online shopping and small businesses do not show how the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor... would be of national importance”
“does not establish that these figures represent a substantial positive economic effect that would extend beyond the Petitioner and her husband to be of national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“These conflicting statements in business plan undermine the Petitioner's claim that its potential for job creation show her endeavor's national importance.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“their claims of her proposed endeavor's prospective economic benefit to the U.S. economy are not supported in the record”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“statistics about the global eyewear industry and articles about online shopping and small businesses do not show how the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor... would be of national importance”
AAO decision text - other · ignored
“the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on appeal”
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 declined to consider new evidence (client letters) submitted for the first time on appeal under Matter of Soriano/Obaigbena, since Petitioner had been given a prior RFE opportunity to address the same deficiency. Decision also notes internal inconsistency in the business plan regarding whether the company would sell prescription eyewear or fashion-only glasses, undermining credibility of job-creation projections.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- 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