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 serve as CEO of his own company providing road freight/logistics transportation services, aiming to efficiently distribute cargo across U.S. supply chains.
Field: logistics operations · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner failed to establish five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience because supporting letters came from third parties (accountant, professor) rather than from actual former employers, as required by 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g), and he did not show such employer letters were unavailable.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“these employment and revenue projections are not supported by details showing their basis, nor do they demonstrate a significant potential to either employ U.S. workers or to substantially impact the regional or national economy.”
“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence that his business will be in a HUBZone area.”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
“the letters of recommendation do not offer persuasive detail concerning the impact of his proposed endeavor and how it would extend beyond his clients.”
“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the provided letters do not meet the requirements of 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B)”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“these employment and revenue projections are not supported by details showing their basis”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters of recommendation do not offer persuasive detail concerning the impact of his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“the articles and reports do not discuss any particulars of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or its prospective impact rising to 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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO affirmed threshold EB-2 denial due to reliance on third-party letters (accountant, professor) instead of former-employer letters, then separately found prong 1 failed on national importance, citing HUBZone claims lacking evidentiary support and reserving prongs 2 and 3 under Bagamasbad/L-A-C- doctrine of declining to reach unnecessary issues.
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. 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