The Petitioner, an interior designer with over 15 years of experience, sought to develop and expand her own interior design business in Massachusetts, asserting it would create jobs, serve minority/women-owned enterprises, and operate in a HUBZone.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner did not establish that her proposed endeavor has national importance”

“the record does not substantiate how the projections found in her statement and business plan will be realized”

“The Petitioner does not demonstrate how the entity she has created will be funded or that it has pending contracts for jobs to be completed”

“The Petitioner has not demonstrated how her proposed endeavor will have substantial positive economic effects in an economically depressed area”

“the expert opinion is of little probative value as the opinion does not meaningfully address the details of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and why it would have national importance”

“the Petitioner's contention that her experience shows the national importance of her proposed endeavor will not meet her burden to establish national importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the record does not substantiate how the projections found in her statement and business plan will be realized”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the expert opinion is of little probative value as the opinion does not meaningfully address the details of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “when considering the national importance of a proposed endeavor we do not look to a Petitioner's qualifications and expertise”

  AAO decision text
• media · discounted

  “The articles and industry reports that the Petitioner references are general and do not discuss her proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• degree · discounted

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
• 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
• Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact

Notable

AAO found petitioner's Brazilian 'Titulo de Tecnologo' degree, described on her own ETA 750 as an 'Associate' degree, insufficient for EB-2 advanced degree classification. Also flagged unresolved inconsistency between a personal job offer submitted in RFE response and the business she claimed to be founding, and a discrepancy between claimed HUBZone location and the actual registered business address per SBA records; expert letter discussing opportunities in Brazil's arts industry was found irrelevant to the U.S.-based endeavor.

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