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 an HR consulting firm in Florida offering recruitment, training, performance appraisal, compensation, and related HR services to companies.
Field: human resources management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO withdrew Director's finding that Petitioner held bachelor's equivalent, concluding the diploma evaluation was unsupported/not in accord with EDGE and the 'Titulo de Especialista' was not a master's equivalent; declined to reach exceptional ability claim since NIW was denied on other grounds.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner, however, has not provided evidence demonstrating that her proposed endeavor would operate on such a scale as to rise to a level of national importance.”
“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims.”
“The Petitioner, however, does not provide sufficient detail of the basis of these projections, or adequately explain how these staffing targets and revenue forecasts will reach the level of national importance contemplated in Dhanasar.”
“Thus, while we acknowledge that the human resources industry is important, this fact is insufficient to establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“absent the transcript of the Petitioner's undergraduate degree demonstrating four years of study, she has not sufficiently established”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“does not provide sufficient detail of the basis of these projections, or adequately explain how these staffing targets and revenue forecasts will reach the level of national importance”
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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO disagreed with Director's threshold EB-2 finding (withdrew the bachelor's-equivalent determination as unsupported) but still dismissed on prong 1 national importance grounds; declined to address exceptional ability alternative or prongs 2-3 under Bagamasbad reservation doctrine.
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 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