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 program manager, proposed to establish and manage his own consultancy, I-A- LLC, providing online marketing strategies and SEO services to clients using artificial intelligence tools.
Field: IT program management / online marketing and SEO consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner claimed exceptional ability but was found to meet only two of six regulatory criteria (degree and ten years' experience); membership in professional associations and recognition for achievements/contributions to the field were not established, so no final merits determination was reached.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“SCOPS concluded that its potential prospective impact would be limited to the Petitioner, his company, and its clients.”
“the record does not indicate that the company's use of artificial intelligence tools would be innovative in the industry”
“he has not shown that this projected level of employment would constitute a substantial positive economic effect for the area.”
“the Petitioner does not explain how this information is relevant to the potential prospective impact of his specific proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not demonstrate achievement or significant contributions beyond that customer to the IT or digital marketing industry or field”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the record did not establish that either association qualifies as a professional association”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“he has not shown that this projected level of employment would constitute a substantial positive economic effect for the area”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO rejected a HUBZone-based national importance argument, noting the Petitioner failed to show that a projected 24 direct jobs over five years would constitute a substantial positive economic effect for an economically depressed area.
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. 103.5
- Flores v. Garland
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