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 software engineer with a PhD in electrical/computer engineering, sought to grow a fitness and lifestyle coaching business he and his spouse founded, developing AI-based nutrition and coaching apps to expand from Canada into the U.S. market.
Field: health/nutrition technology (software apps) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and record supported, that Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“Merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of a proposed endeavor without evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of a petitioner's work.”
“he has not shown that the impact of his particular app or other functions of his business would extend beyond his clients”
“the record does not sufficiently describe the basis for these specific figures or how they will be realized such that they demonstrate substantial impact”
“while ripple effects may signify positive developments within a narrow area, they alone may not suffice to establish the requisite level of national importance”
“the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that his proposed endeavor in the United States will have national importance under the first Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the record does not sufficiently describe the basis for these specific figures or how they will be realized”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“The support letters in the record discuss the Petitioner's past professional accomplishments rather than the potential of his proposed endeavor to impact his field more broadly”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“the industry reports and articles discuss his field generally”
AAO decision text - resume experience · credited
- degree · credited
All 6 evidence items
- certification membership · ignored
Where this case turned
- 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 highlighted an unresolved inconsistency between the Petitioner's business plan (17 new hires) and his RFE-response impact analysis report (174 new hires), citing Matter of Ho on unresolved inconsistencies as an aggravating factor in rejecting the economic-impact claims, though this was not the sole dispositive rationale.
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)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Ho
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