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 Brazilian-trained consultant with logistics experience in ophthalmic equipment distribution, proposed to work as an employee or independent consultant helping U.S. companies enter the Brazilian healthcare market and Brazilian companies enter the U.S. healthcare market.
Field: international trade / healthcare equipment consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director and AAO agreed she qualified as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree based on her bachelor's degree plus five years of progressive experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“she does not explain or provide details about how her expertise would "proliferate" or her methodologies would be implemented beyond those clients”
“she does not provide evidence to support the economic impact of her specific endeavor, whether as an employee or an individual consultant”
“the Petitioner had not demonstrated that the impact of her proposed consulting activities would have implications beyond her employer and its partners and clients”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“there are several unexplained discrepancies within the letters themselves, and between the letters and other evidence in the record”
“it does not establish that her level of expertise is at least significantly above that ordinarily encountered in that field”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“unexplained discrepancies within the letters themselves, and between the letters and other evidence in the record”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“her experience as a legal assistant and independent consultant during this period was not full-time”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
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
- Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
Notable
The AAO found both prong 1 and prong 2 independently unsatisfied (declining prong 3), and devoted unusual attention to cross-checking the Petitioner's resume against reference letters, identifying multiple unexplained date and employment-status discrepancies that undermined the credibility of her claimed consulting experience.
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)
- Poursina v. USCIS
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution