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 consultant with experience in humanitarian nonprofit projects in Colombia, sought to work in the U.S. through his own consulting company, helping nonprofit organizations design social projects addressing homelessness, education, and income inequality.
Field: nonprofit sector consulting / humanitarian development · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional based on a law degree and a Master of Education degree; the Director's finding on this point was not disturbed.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“his endeavor will not focus on a particular organization, project, or region”
“it does not include a more precise estimate or timeline for the projected growth”
“general labor statistics about the non-profit sector are not relevant for the purpose of establishing the national importance of the Petitioner's specific endeavor”
“the record lacks projections as to the number of regions or projects the Petitioner will target”
“the Petitioner has not provided specific information about the number and types of jobs his endeavor would create”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“his endeavor will not focus on a particular organization, project, or region”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“it does not include a more precise estimate or timeline for the projected growth”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“general labor statistics about the non-profit sector are not relevant for the purpose of establishing the national importance of the Petitioner's specific endeavor”
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
The decision's caption states 'Appeal of California Service Center Decision' but the body text repeatedly refers to 'The Director of the Texas Service Center,' an internal inconsistency likely due to OCR or drafting error. A footnote also notes the Petitioner's company was formed (May 1, 2023) after the petition's filing date (December 9, 2022), undercutting the business plan's credibility though not explicitly cited as a separate failure basis. The AAO expressly declined to reach the Director's adverse prong-three findings since prong-one failure was 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. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
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