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 expand her family's Ecuador-based telecommunications and energy company into the United States by operating a Florida-based business managing administrative processes, a purchasing/warehouse department for equipment export to Latin America, and installation/maintenance of photovoltaic systems.
Field: human resources / business development / renewable energy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director determined Petitioner was a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; not contested on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition.”
“she has not supported these assertions with sufficient independent, objective evidence”
“Nor does the evidence demonstrate that the use of the Petitioner's experience will reach beyond benefitting her own company and clients or have broader implications within the field of telecommunications and energy.”
“The record does not establish that her proposed endeavor stands to impact the field as a whole.”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“relies on the merits of the services her business has provided in Ecuador and the importance of renewable energy solutions”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“The evidence does not suggest that the Petitioner's skills differ from or improve upon those already available and in use in the United States.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · ignored
- certification membership · ignored
- other · discounted
“we will not accept evidence offered for the first time on appeal”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- 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
AAO noted the Petitioner failed to respond to the RFE's specific request for detail and declined to consider new appellate evidence under Soriano/Obaigbena, but nonetheless conducted an alternative analysis assuming the new evidence was considered and still found the endeavor lacked national importance.
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. 103.2(b)(12)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(8)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- 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