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 sought to work as an independent business owner/entrepreneur operating a data analytics/IT consulting company in Florida, helping small businesses use data analysis tools.
Field: information technology / data science · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner's initial description of the proposed endeavor does not provide any other details beyond his intention to be an entrepreneur.”
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”
“the record does not elaborate on the extent to which his company will have "substantial positive economic effects."”
“The business plan by itself does not sufficiently demonstrate the basis for its financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized.”
“the record does not support the Petitioner's consulting business in Florida would operate on such a large scale that would benefit the U.S. economy”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“these letters do not address how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond himself and his clients to impact the field”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“The business plan by itself does not sufficiently demonstrate the basis for its financial and staffing projections”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“The Petitioner has not provided any corroborating evidence of the nature or numerosity of clients or clients' projects to support the claims”
AAO decision text - resume experience · ignored
- certification membership · ignored
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
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
The projected financial figures in the business plan sharply diverged from actual reported results (projected $43,232 net income for 2023 vs. actual $3,701.32 profit reported for November 2022), which the AAO cited as undermining the credibility of the projections.
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
- 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