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 found and operate a startup legal services consulting company based in Florida, planning to employ 13 individuals, including herself, within the first five years of operations.
Field: legal services consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO agreed with the Director that the record does not establish the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“have the broader implications for the consulting services industry, U.S. economy, and international trade as she claims, beyond her business and potential clientele.”
“does not include any evidence-based justifications for the staffing projections and need to employ additional employees, and thus does not demonstrate a significant potential to employ workers.”
“the record lacks corroborating evidence that would objectively substantiate [financial] projections, such as underlying independent basis for the firm's claimed net worth and the source of the claimed sales and revenue.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“does not include any evidence-based justifications for the staffing projections and need to employ additional employees”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“the media publications and other information the Petitioner submits on motion to reopen are immaterial to the issue of whether the specific endeavor...may have national importance”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“submits, in essence, the same brief she submitted on appeal, containing many passages-including entire paragraphs-of verbatim text, generally alleging error”
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
Notable
The Petitioner cited a USCIS policy memorandum (PM-602-0085) with an incorrect date and the memo had already been rescinded in 2018 before the underlying I-140 was filed, rendering the argument moot. The AAO also emphasized that a motion to reconsider cannot merely resubmit the same brief with verbatim passages.
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(a)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- Matter of Coelho
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of O-S-G-
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