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 grow a marketing consulting firm in Florida offering a platform linking donors and causes and helping nonprofit organizations with marketing, fundraising, and e-commerce.
Field: sales and marketing / nonprofit marketing consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the income and personnel projections provided in his brief on appeal and in his definitive statement are insufficient to demonstrate the potential for substantial positive economic impact”
“the business plan shows contradictory numbers to those mentioned in the brief”
“there is no evidence that the Petitioner will be participating in the Small Business Administration's HUBZone program”
“the opinion does not meaningfully address the details of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and why it would have national importance”
“The Petitioner does not mention this line of work in his proposed endeavor”
“we conclude that he has not established that his proposed endeavor has national importance and thus, he did not meet the national importance requirement of the first prong”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan shows contradictory numbers to those mentioned in the brief”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“we give the document less weight in our determination of the proposed endeavor's national importance”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner points to his resume and his 'work in the field' that go to the second prong ... which the Director determined the Petitioner had established”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the resubmission of evidence already in the record”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“The articles and industry reports that the Petitioner references are general and do not discuss his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO flagged inconsistent signature pages on the expert opinion letter and inconsistent payroll figures between the business plan and the appellate brief, citing Matter of Ho and Matter of O-M-O- on fabricated/inconsistent evidence undermining the entire claim; also noted a prior AAO decision (In Re: 26929447) had found the same petitioner ineligible for advanced degree classification in a separate I-140 appeal, though this issue was reserved.
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 Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of Y-B-
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