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 establish and lead a security management consulting business in Florida offering personal, asset, and corporate security consulting and training services.
Field: security management consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director and AAO agreed Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional via bachelor's degree plus five years progressive experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not sufficiently document the potential prospective impact, including the asserted economic benefits to Florida and the United States”
“merely working in the security management field or starting a security management consulting business is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“The industry reports and articles submitted do not discuss any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation specifically attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
“The content of the opinion is lacking relevance because it discusses how the Petitioner's expertise would be beneficial to U.S. companies planning to do business in Brazil”
“we agree with the Director that the record does not demonstrate that the proposed endeavor extends beyond the Petitioner's business and his future clients”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the record does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“Where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, USCIS is not required to accept it or may give it less weight”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“The industry reports and articles submitted do not discuss any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation specifically attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - resume experience · credited
- degree · credited
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
- 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 withdrew the Director's finding on substantial merit but still found national importance unmet, illustrating that the two sub-elements of prong 1 can be split; also discussed and discounted an expert letter for lacking relevance (focused on Brazil business rather than the actual U.S. proposed endeavor).
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 D-R-
- 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