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, an IT director, planned to run his own U.S.-based IT consulting business offering consulting, cloud computing implementation/support, and virtual office platform services to companies.
Field: information technology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner failed to establish advanced degree equivalency (Title of Technologist not equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree) and failed to meet at least three of six exceptional ability criteria (met only one: academic record).
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The professional plan and statement describes the proposed endeavor but does not sufficiently describe the national importance of it.”
“The Petitioner has not provided a foundation or corroborating details to support the growth projections he provided in his business plan.”
“the record lacks sufficient evidence to establish a strong connection between the proposed endeavor activities and job creation or tax revenues on a level commensurate with national importance”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how his work as an IT Director for his own company would resolve the shortage or produce an impact rising to the level of national importance”
“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or will create a broad impact without providing evidence to corroborate such claims.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“generalized conclusions are insufficient to establish the U.S. equivalency of the Petitioner's education”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the evidence of the Petitioner's employment is inconsistent, lacks sufficient detail, and is not adequately corroborated”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they did not provide any specific details explaining how the Petitioner's work is representative of recognition for achievements and significant contributions”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“these figures appear to be little more than conjecture”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the record does not contain evidence of any client service contracts or payments from clients to the Petitioner”
AAO decision text
All 7 evidence items
- media · discounted
“none of the reference materials discuss the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“even if the Petitioner provided sufficient evidence to establish that his salary was in fact higher than other IT Directors, it would simply establish that he earned a higher-than-average salary”
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
- 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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
Notable
AAO first withdraws the Director's finding of underlying EB-2 eligibility itself (finding petitioner met only 1 of 6 exceptional ability criteria and did not establish advanced degree equivalency), rendering the NIW issue moot, but nonetheless proceeds to adopt/affirm the Director's national importance analysis under Matter of P. Singh 'adopt and affirm' doctrine to address appellate arguments. Petitioner's foreign credential (Brazilian 'Title of Technologist') was found via AACRAO EDGE database to be only 2-3 years of university study, not a full bachelor's equivalent.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- Chen v. INS
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of Otiende
- Matter of V-K-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- Section 291 of the Act
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