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 manage a Florida-based company developing luxury, multifamily, and affordable housing projects using capital from Latin American investors, aiming to improve affordable housing availability and encourage foreign investment.
Field: real estate development / affordable housing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO agreed Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 classification as an advanced-degree professional based on his MBA.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner did not establish the economic im act or the number of jobs created by his project”
“he did not establish that his endeavor would benefit others apart from his clientele”
“The Director agreed that affordable housing is an issue of national importance, but that this alone was insufficient”
“he has not established that his endeavor would have the economic impact he asserts”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letter lacked details regarding the number of jobs and the economic impact of the project”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“these letters are not supported by other objective documentary evidence which shows that the loans were accepted by the applicants”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“the totality of the Petitioner's evidence in this regard speaks to the substantial merit of his proposed endeavor but does not establish that his endeavor would have the economic impact he asserts”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- 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
AAO expressly rejected Petitioner's argument that the Director imposed a 'novel or otherwise undefined and arbitrary requirement,' clarifying that Dhanasar's national-importance standard does not require a specific number of jobs but does require corroborated, non-conclusory evidence of broader economic impact beyond the petitioner's own clientele.
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)
- Chen v. INS
- Flores v. Garland
- 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