dismissedMAR162023_02B52032023-03-16 · appeal · Texas Service Center

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 graphic designer, proposed to start his own U.S.-based digital marketing and design agency offering design consulting and online training services to businesses, and also proposed to create illustrated comic books on social issues for distribution to schools.

Field: graphic design / digital marketing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

The Petitioner's foreign academic credentials, individually or combined, were not shown to equal a U.S. baccalaureate or advanced degree; the regulation requires a single qualifying degree rather than a combination of certificates, and the Petitioner also failed to establish five years of post-baccalaureate progressive experience in the specialty at time of filing.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not provided sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”

“the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish what the broader implications of his work would be, or that his work would extend beyond his company and its clients”

“he has not shown that his company's future staffing levels and business activity stand to provide substantial economic benefits in Florida or the United States”

“he has not offered sufficient evidence that the area where his company operates is economically depressed, that he would employ a significant population of workers”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established

“The Petitioner does not submit evidence of progress toward achieving his proposed endeavor or the interest of potential customers, despite the fact that his business has been in existence more than five years since 2017.”

AAO decision text

Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established

“Nor does he submit evidence that it would be impractical to secure a job offer or to obtain a labor certification, whether the United States would benefit from his contributions, or whether the national interest in his contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

degree · discounted
“the Petitioner has not established that either of his academic credentials alone is the foreign equivalent degree to either a U.S. baccalaureate degree or a U.S. advanced degree”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner does not submit documentary evidence of this experience as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B)”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“he has not provided sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text
motion resubmission · discounted
“The Director fully addressed the previously submitted evidence and explained how it was deficient in establishing that the Petitioner is eligible”
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
Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
Urgency not established · p3 — no reason shown why the benefit cannot wait for labour certification

1,312coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →

Notable

The AAO addressed the threshold EB-2 advanced-degree issue sua sponte (the Director had not reached it), finding the Petitioner's combination of foreign certificates did not equal a single qualifying degree. The Petitioner was deemed self-represented because his appellate attorney was found unauthorized to practice law. Although the AAO declined to formally reach prongs two and three after finding prong one dispositive, it included an extensive alternative footnote analysis of those prongs, which this coding captures as analyzed but non-dispositive.

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. 103.2(b)(1)
8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(12)
8 C.F.R. 103.3
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
Matter of Ho
Matter of Izummi
Matter of Katigbak
Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer