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 proposed to establish and serve as CEO of a management consulting firm in Florida providing human resources, finance, and accounting services to small and medium-sized enterprises and educational institutions.
Field: human resources / management consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner met 3 of 6 exceptional ability criteria (academic record, license, membership) but failed the final merits determination; AAO reserved this issue as not reached, since prong 1 was dispositive.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the matter here is not whether these topics are nationally important”
“The record does not show through supporting documentation how her endeavor sufficiently extends beyond her prospective clients or employees to impact the field or the U.S. economy more broadly”
“the Petitioner did not present sufficient supporting evidence to corroborate the assertions and figures”
“the Petitioner did not demonstrate the relevance of these numbers and show that such future staffing levels would provide substantial economic benefits”
“the letters do not show the broader potential impact of the Petitioner's work rather than limited to her past colleagues and employers”
“the record does not demonstrate that, beyond the limited benefits provided to its prospective clients and employees, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has broader implications rising to the level of having national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner did not establish the significance of this data to show that the benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not show the broader potential impact of the Petitioner's work rather than limited to her past colleagues and employers”
AAO decision text - certification membership · credited
- degree · credited
- other · discounted
“the matter here is not whether these topics are nationally important”
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
- 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
Notable
AAO found the Director's harmless error in mischaracterizing petitioner's proposed role (referencing a pilot occupation and generic CEO description) did not affect the outcome; AAO reserved both the exceptional-ability threshold issue and prongs 2/3 as unnecessary given the dispositive prong 1 finding.
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
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution