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 former project manager and proofreader in Brazil, proposed to establish and lead a proofreading and localization services business in Maryland serving small businesses and investors in the mid-Atlantic region and Brazil.
Field: proofreading and localization services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found, and AAO did not disturb, that the Petitioner established eligibility as an advanced degree professional based on a foreign bachelor's equivalent plus five years of progressive experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not establish that her proposed endeavor has the potential to have a broader impact beyond her business and her clients at a level commensurate with national importance”
“It does not sufficiently detail the basis of its financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized.”
“merely working in an important industry, such as the proofreading and localization fields, or starting a proofreading and localization services business is insufficient to establish the national importance”
“The Petitioner does not demonstrate that her proposed endeavor extends beyond her business and her future clients to impact the field of linguistics or the U.S. economy more broadly”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“does not sufficiently detail the basis of its financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“does not show a projected economic impact specifically attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“generally restates information provided in the business plan and does not explain the basis for these employment and financial projections”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
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
The AAO expressly noted that the Director's decision failed to provide any analysis for the prong 2 and prong 3 determinations, yet the AAO dismissed solely on prong 1 and declined to reach prongs 2 and 3. The Petitioner made a notable textual argument distinguishing Dhanasar's 'significant potential to employ U.S. workers' from 'potential to employ a significant number of U.S. workers,' which the AAO did not directly rebut but found unsupported by evidence regardless.
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 E-M-
- 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