dismissedMAY062024_03B52032024-05-06 · appeal · Nebraska Service Center
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, an architect and urban planner, proposed to provide architectural consulting and interior design services through her own firm, focused on sustainable and energy-efficient building solutions in Florida.
Field: architecture and urban planning · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director already found she qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on bachelor's degree plus five years of progressive experience; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“the letters do not provide specific examples indicating that the Petitioner's work has impacted the field.”
“Ms. does not describe the Petitioner's contributions to the field of architecture and design.”
“Mr. does not name or describe any of the Petitioner's projects, nor does he explain how the Petitioner's regional and local accomplishments have impacted the field”
“she has not shown that this work renders her well-positioned to advance her specific proposed endeavor as an architect and design consultant”
“the business plan does not describe the Petitioner's plans for obtaining a license to practice her profession in Florida”
“The record lacks evidence of interest from public administration or agencies involved in urban planning”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“does not provide specific examples indicating that the Petitioner's work has impacted the field”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“does not describe the Petitioner's plans for obtaining a license to practice her profession”
AAO decision text - resume experience · credited
- degree · credited
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
- No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
- Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
- Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground
1,358coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
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
- INA 203(b)(2)
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