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 establish a human resources consulting services business in Texas serving construction workers and companies, SMEs, foreign entrepreneurs, and individuals.
Field: human resources consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner's foreign diploma was only a two-year program, not equivalent to a four-year U.S. baccalaureate, and no academic evaluation was submitted; authenticity of transcripts also questioned due to illegible/fuzzy letterhead. AAO withdrew Director's finding that she qualified as an advanced degree professional; reserved exceptional ability determination since NIW was denied regardless.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“these employment and revenue projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be realized”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“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”
“does not offer any persuasive detail concerning the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or how her endeavor's impact would extend beyond the companies that she will serve”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“a bachelor's degree is generally found to require four years of education”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“these employment and revenue projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be realized”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's expertise and record of success in previous positions are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“does not offer any persuasive detail concerning the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or how her endeavor's impact would extend beyond the companies that she will serve”
AAO decision text - other · 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
Notable
AAO withdrew the Director's favorable threshold finding sua sponte, questioning the authenticity of transcripts based on document appearance (fuzzy letterhead), then reserved the exceptional-ability and threshold classification issue entirely since the NIW failed on prong 1 regardless.
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)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of Caron Int'l
- Matter of D-R-
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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