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 operate a human resources consultancy business in Florida offering coaching, therapy, assessments, personal development, personal branding, and counseling services to executives, public officials, entrepreneurs, and business owners.
Field: human resources consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO did not dispute, that Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on a bachelor's degree plus five years of progressive experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not contain evidence that the Petitioner's past achievements resulted in a broad impact on the human resources field”
“These generalized claims relate to the human resources field overall, and not the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
“The Petitioner has not shown that her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her company and its clientele to impact the human resources industry or the U.S. economy at a level commensurate with national importance.”
“the Petitioner's potential client letters, bank letter, and paystubs do not demonstrate that the Petitioner's human resources consulting business has the potential for a broad impact on the field”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“these claims are not supported by the evidence in the record”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the record does not contain evidence that the Petitioner's past achievements resulted in a broad impact on the human resources field”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“this would not establish the proposed endeavor's national importance”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“do not demonstrate that the Petitioner's human resources consulting business has the potential for a broad impact on the field”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the focus of the first prong is on the proposed endeavor itself and not the petitioner”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
Notable
AAO reversed the Director's finding that the endeavor was not 'well-defined,' agreeing with the Petitioner on that point, but still found the endeavor lacked national importance and dismissed the appeal on prong 1 alone, declining to reach prongs 2 and 3.
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 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