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, former President/CEO of a polo apparel company, proposed to grow that brand in the U.S., offer experiential sales/marketing consulting to retail businesses, and pursue entrepreneurial ventures including a polo-related mobile app and a new sport combining polo with electric unicycles.
Field: retail marketing / polo equipment and apparel business · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO withdrew Director's findings that Petitioner met the salary and professional-membership exceptional-ability criteria, leaving him with only two of the required three criteria met; he did not claim advanced-degree professional classification.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the benefits of this approach in a consultancy setting would be limited to the Petitioner, his company and his clients”
“the Petitioner has not shown that the benefits of his proposed consulting would have a broader impact on the field of business”
“This evidence is not sufficient to establish that either venture has significant potential to employ U.S. workers.”
“those for are described as "total market opportunity" and are highly speculative at more than $36 million per year”
“since his proposed endeavor is of substantial merit it "inevitably has implications at a level sufficient to establish national importance." We disagree.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · credited
- other · discounted
“he has not submitted evidence showing that it is indicative of exceptional ability relative to others working in the field”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner has not established that, as an ambassador, he is considered to be a member of PIP”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“Neither document includes projections of future job creation”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“are described as "total market opportunity" and are highly speculative”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- recommendation letter · discounted
“does not mention that teaching training courses is a part of that endeavor”
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
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- 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 Petitioner failed threshold EB-2 exceptional-ability classification (withdrawing two of Director's four credited criteria, including rejecting FIP 'Ambassador' role as professional membership), yet proceeded to analyze Dhanasar prong 1 in the alternative and found it independently dispositive; noted Petitioner's failure to explain practicality of pursuing four simultaneous ventures.
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)
- 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