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 planned to serve as general manager and majority owner of a Florida business-consulting company, overseeing operations and providing a three-stage consulting model to help small and medium-sized U.S. businesses improve efficiency and growth.
Field: business consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS found and AAO did not dispute that Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“individually tailored services help serve the needs of specific clients, but by nature they do not represent broadly applicable measures that a wide range of companies can readily adopt”
“the business plan makes staffing and revenue projections but does not offer details showing their basis or how they will be realized”
“these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved”
“we conclude the Petitioner has not shown that her proposed endeavor stands to impact her field, the business consulting industry, more broadly”
“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance without providing evidence to substantiate such claims”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“the submitted articles do not discuss any details of the specific endeavor and its impact”
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
- 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 reserved the second and third Dhanasar prongs entirely, resting dismissal solely on national importance; SCOPS had found substantial merit but not national importance, and AAO's analysis focused heavily on unsupported staffing/revenue projections and the individually-tailored nature of consulting services as evidence of only employer/client-specific benefit.
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. 103.5
- Flores v. Garland
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to show her consulting company's prospective impact—via staffing/revenue projections or her 'novel' three-stage methodology—would reach a scale affecting the industry or economy beyond her own clients.
Support projections (staffing, revenue) with concrete evidentiary basis and explain how the specific endeavor's methodology or outputs will scale to affect the broader field or economy, not just the petitioner's own clients.
vague
economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic
person_focused
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