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 pharmaceutical/medical products sales specialist, proposed to co-found and serve as operations manager of a Florida company providing outsourced marketing consulting and sales-training workshops to pharmaceutical and medical products industry clients.
Field: medical/pharmaceutical sales and marketing consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director and AAO agreed the Petitioner established EB-2 eligibility as an advanced degree professional based on a bachelor's degree plus more than five years of progressive experience in the marketing specialty.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“these employment and revenue projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be realized”
“she has not offered sufficient evidence that her business, which had not yet been incorporated or secured physical premises, will have offices in one or more HUBZones”
“they do not discuss her specific proposed endeavor or explain why it has national importance nor do they speak to the potential broader implications of her intended work”
“the record does not support a conclusion that this is an equitable comparison”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“these employment and revenue projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be realized”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters are not probative of the Petitioner's eligibility under the first prong of Dhanasar”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the expert opinion letter is very general, significantly focuses on the importance of the overall healthcare industry”
AAO decision text - resume experience · credited
- degree · 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 conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
The Petitioner attempted to equate a HUBZone-eligible location with an 'economically depressed area' under Dhanasar, but explicitly conceded her endeavor would not participate in the HUBZone program itself; the AAO rejected this analogy as inapposite. The AAO declined to reach prongs two and three, resting dismissal solely on prong one.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of Caron Int'l
- Matter of D-R-
- 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