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 an international trade consulting company in Florida providing import/export logistics and strategic planning services to small and medium-sized businesses.
Field: international trade consulting / marketing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO agreed, that Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional; not contested on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employees and clients”
“the business plan's projections are not supported by probative evidence to demonstrate the credibility of the growth estimates forecasted”
“We note that the Petitioner's suggestion that labor certification requirements be waived due to a talent shortage is not persuasive”
“These letters, however, do not describe the specifics of the Petitioner's endeavor”
“he has not shown that his business activity stands to provide substantial economic benefits to Florida or to the United States”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan's projections are not supported by probative evidence to demonstrate the credibility of the growth estimates forecasted”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“These letters, however, do not describe the specifics of the Petitioner's endeavor or provide insight into how his particular endeavor... is of national importance”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's experience is generally relevant not to the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, but to the second”
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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- 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 explicitly rejected the Petitioner's talent-shortage argument as a basis for waiving labor certification, noting the labor certification process exists precisely to identify shortages of qualified U.S. workers. AAO also noted the Petitioner's appeal brief was largely identical to the RFE response and failed to identify specific legal or factual errors in the Director's decision.
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.
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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