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, a former marketing manager in Russia, proposed to establish and operate an online marketing agency in the U.S. focused on environmental advertising, eco-branding, environmental design, and environmental PR.
Field: marketing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner did not hold an actual bachelor's degree and, even treating her incomplete studies as equivalent, could not have accrued five years of post-baccalaureate progressive experience by the time of filing, as her studies ended less than two years before filing.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“General assertions about entrepreneurship, marketing, and sustainability do not give national imp01iance to one paiiicular business that engages in online marketing with a focus on sustainability.”
“The Petitioner has not established the economic significance of her proposed endeavor in the context of an industry that, according to the record, employs over I 00,000 people and produces roughly $50 billion in annual revenue.”
“Portions of that letter essentially paraphrase elements of the business plan for the Petitioner's company.”
“We agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not shown that the "limited personnel outlined in the business plan" reach this level of significance.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“The Petitioner has not established the economic significance of her proposed endeavor in the context of an industry”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“Portions of that letter essentially paraphrase elements of the business plan for the Petitioner's company.”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“the record does not show that the evidence cited in the credential evaluation meets the regulatory requirements”
AAO decision text - resume experience · credited
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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
Notable
AAO found both the threshold EB-2 advanced-degree equivalency and the NIW prong 1 unmet, reserving prongs 2 and 3 as unnecessary to the outcome; a footnote notes the Petitioner later filed and had approved a separate I-140/NIW petition on her own behalf, which was not part of this record.
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- 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