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 grow a construction and trucking business in Florida, offering renovation and disaster-relief construction services and freight trucking, with plans to expand and hire employees.
Field: construction and trucking · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“these employment and revenue projections are not supported by details showing their basis”
“the record does not support that the direct creation of 90 additional jobs in this sector or the expected revenue generated by the company will have a substantial economic benefit”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's role stands to sufficiently extend beyond his own company and its clients to impact the industry more broadly”
“he has not offered sufficient evidence that his company would employ a significant population of workers in these "opportunity zones."”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“these employment and revenue projections are not supported by details showing their basis”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's expertise and record of success are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”
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 expressly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the principle that agencies need not address unnecessary issues; also noted the discretionary nature of NIW grants under Flores v. Garland.
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-
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to show national importance: unsupported job/revenue projections and no evidence the venture's impact extends beyond his own company/clients to the broader industry.
Support economic projections with documented basis and show how the specific endeavor's impact extends beyond the individual business to the broader field, region, or economy.
moderate
economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · geographic_or_shortage_area
person_focused
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