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 sought to work as a Human Resources Manager and entrepreneur through his own LLC, providing business development consulting and HR services such as recruitment, headhunting, and tax and labor advice.
Field: human resources consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS found, and AAO did not dispute, that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“he did not elaborate on these projections or provide evidence supporting the need for these additional employees”
“the record does not contain sufficient supporting evidence”
“shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process”
“none of the articles mention the Petitioner or his company, or otherwise speak to the potential prospective impact of his specific proposed endeavor”
“he has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and its clientele”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“does not demonstrate how the Petitioner's day-to-day management of his company's operations and consulting work... rises to a level of national importance”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“none of the articles mention the Petitioner or his company, or otherwise speak to the potential prospective impact of his specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“The national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands separate and apart from his education, skills, and job experience”
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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
Notable
The AAO expressly declined to reach prongs two and three as unnecessary, citing INS v. Bagamasbad, and stated its reasoning was 'considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision.' Petitioner's letters of recommendation were noted as relevant to prong two but not considered under prong one, illustrating the AAO's cross-prong evidentiary sorting.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
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