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, a family relationship coach, proposed to establish a coaching business offering DIRFloortime-based family coaching services and training to other providers.
Field: family relationship/DIRFloortime coaching · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO disagreed with the Director's finding that Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional because her foreign diplomas and transcripts lacked proper certified translations under 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(3), rendering the documents entitled to no evidentiary weight; however, since Petitioner was not on notice, this was not the basis of dismissal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the evidence provided does not demonstrate that the endeavor is of national importance.”
“It contains articles indicating the importance of the Petitioner's field, but these reports do not specifically address her proposed endeavor.”
“The record though lacks evidence demonstrating that the projections claimed in the business plan will result in substantial economic growth on the level of national importance.”
“we find that the record does not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will sufficiently extend beyond her clients and trainees to affect the region or nation more broadly.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“It does not illustrate how creating 10 jobs and generating around $3 million in revenue over five years... would have substantial positive economic effects on the level of national importance.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the record does not contain evidence demonstrating how individual interactions with clients and trainees will impact the field more broadly”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“these reports do not specifically address her proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“none of documents have any evidentiary weight and will not be considered.”
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 found the Director erred in concluding Petitioner met the advanced-degree requirement due to uncertified/improper translations of foreign diplomas, but declined to base dismissal on this since Petitioner lacked notice; also noted the Director never assessed Petitioner's alternative claim of exceptional-ability classification, and AAO declined to address that claim in the first instance on appeal.
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)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Ho
- 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