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 real estate consulting company providing strategic, pre- and post-negotiation, financial, and regulatory guidance to small and medium-sized businesses, along with training webinars and research on the real estate industry.
Field: real estate consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; this was not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not support his assertions that his work will result in broader implications to the field”
“the business plan provides little explanation and objective basis of these projections.”
“does not establish the broader impact of his specific endeavor.”
“the evidence in the record does not establish the Petitioner's company will result in substantial economic effects.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan provides little explanation and objective basis of these projections.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not analyze the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or offer evidence of its impact, beyond commenting on his expertise.”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“the Petitioner did not provide an explanation of the research he intends to conduct moving forward before the Director.”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · ignored
“we will not consider it for the first time on appeal.”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“the Petitioner did not submit evidence corroborating their statements in the record regarding the company's startup investment.”
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
- 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
The AAO clarified that financial-investment evidence is more relevant to Dhanasar's second prong (well-positioned) than to national importance, but found no prejudice from the Director's treatment of it since the appeal was decided on prong one alone. The decision also cites Flores v. Garland for the discretionary nature of NIW adjudications and rejects the Petitioner's reliance on an unpublished non-precedent AAO decision as non-binding.
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(c)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of E-M-
- 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