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 serve as founder and CEO of her own marketing consultancy in Florida, providing marketing, PR, digital marketing, and consulting services to small and medium businesses, with planned expansion to Texas and North Carolina.
Field: marketing consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified as advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner's specific undertaking stands to have an impact beyond the organizations and clients she would serve”
“the record does not establish the Petitioner has plans to introduce novel methodologies or techniques that may be disseminated to or adopted by others”
“the plan does not provide sufficient detail of the basis for these projections, or adequately explain how these sales and staffing targets will be realized”
“the Petitioner does not elaborate on the 25 jobs a RIMS II calculation anticipates her company will create, such as the type of jobs those would be”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the plan does not provide sufficient detail of the basis for these projections, or adequately explain how these sales and staffing targets will be realized”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“Without more detailed, credible evidence of the types of jobs that would be created and where the jobs would be located”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“those relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”
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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
Notable
AAO explicitly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3, citing Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the principle that agencies need not make advisory findings on unnecessary issues. Decision distinguishes national importance of the specific endeavor from general importance of marketing services/industry, and critiques RIMS II job-creation projections as insufficiently detailed.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to show the marketing consultancy's specific undertaking would have impact beyond her own clients or reach national-scale economic/job-creation effects; projections were unsupported and vague.
Support economic-impact projections (jobs, revenue) with corroborating evidence and explain methodology; tie the specific endeavor's effects to broader industry or economy, not just general field importance.
vague
economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic
person_focused
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