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 establish and lead a Florida-based company providing professional cleaning, disinfection, and contamination-control services (including dry fog sterilization and antibacterial flooring) to hospitals, cleanrooms, and other healthcare-related facilities.
Field: professional cleaning and disinfection services for healthcare facilities · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS determined the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, and this was not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the determination of national importance does not focus on the importance of a field in general, but rather "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign na,O ~ to undertake."”
“the Petitioner does not discuss the details of the technology he intends to employ, including whether or how they are unique methodologies in infection control and prevention.”
“The Petitioner also does not address how the benefits of the Petitioner's work would extend beyond his business and its own clients.”
“the Petitioner's business plan does not elaborate on its employment and financial projections, as they are not supported by details showing their basis or an exranation of how they will be achieved.”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated the potential prospective impact of his proposed endeavor stands to generate substantial positive economic effects in the region where his company will operate or other parts of the United States.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“does not elaborate on its employment and financial projections, as they are not supported by details showing their basis”
AAO decision text
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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
Notable
SCOPS had found the Petitioner well-positioned under prong two but denied on prong three; the AAO instead found prong one (national importance) dispositive and declined to reach prongs two and three, reserving them under Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C-.
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. 103.5
- 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