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 work in the United States as a public relations/public affairs consultant serving retail-sector clients, aiming to enhance brand image, manage media relations, influence favorable retail policy and tax reforms, and promote corporate sustainability initiatives.
Field: public relations / public affairs consulting (retail sector) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS found, and AAO did not disturb, that the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on a foreign equivalent bachelor's degree plus five years of progressive experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner's economic impact charts are not persuasive because the methodology used to create them is unclear and they are not otherwise supported by evidence.”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work; instead, we focus on the "specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
“the endeavor is nationally important in general, conclusory statements, but does not sufficiently support this claim.”
“The Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his clientele to impact the retail industry or the U.S. economy at a level commensurate with national importance.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the opinion letters are of little probative value as they primarily discuss the impact of the retail sector in general and repeat the Petitioner's claims”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“The Petitioner's economic impact charts are not persuasive because the methodology used to create them is unclear and they are not otherwise supported by evidence.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the letters do not discuss the proposed endeavor or provide evidence of its potential prospective impact”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO acknowledged and withdrew a factual error in the SCOPS decision (an erroneous reference to a Massachusetts business plan with 14 employees) but found the error harmless because the remainder of the decision was sufficiently detailed for meaningful appellate review; the appeal was still dismissed on prong 1 national importance grounds.
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)
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