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 Brazilian-trained architectural designer, proposed to establish and manage an architecture and interior design business in Florida serving residential and commercial clients, including affordable renovation projects and sustainable design.
Field: architecture and interior design · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Occupation of architectural designer (O*NET Architectural and Civil Drafters) does not require a U.S. bachelor's degree for entry; also her combined credentials (title of urbanist architect plus interior design certificate) do not equate to a single U.S. bachelor's degree, and even if they did she lacked 5 years post-baccalaureate progressive experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The evidence does not suggest that the Petitioner's architecture and interior design business would impact the architectural design field more broadly.”
“However, the record does not sufficiently detai I the basis for its ti nancial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized.”
“The industry reports and articles submitted do not discuss any projected U.S. economic impact, job creation, or societal benefits specifically attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
“Even if we were to assume everything the Petitioner claims will happen, the record lacks evidence showing that creating 15 direct jobs and paying wages and tax revenue of 1.8 million dollars over a five-year period rises to the level of national importance.”
“The Petitioner's reliance on her academic credentials, professional experience, and achievements to establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor is misplaced.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the record does not sufficiently detai I the basis for its ti nancial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“these documents relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“her reliance on her academic credentials, professional experience, and achievements to establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor is misplaced”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“The industry reports and articles submitted do not discuss any projected U.S. economic impact, job creation, or societal benefits specifically attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“The Petitioner's combined educational credentials do not qualify under the regulations as the foreign equivalent of a single U.S. bachelor's degree.”
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
- 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
AAO found the Petitioner failed at the threshold EB-2 advanced-degree stage (occupation does not require a bachelor's degree per O*NET, and combined credentials from two Brazilian institutions cannot substitute for a single foreign equivalent bachelor's degree) in addition to failing Dhanasar prong 1 on national importance; the Director had not even reached the threshold classification issue, and the AAO also noted in a footnote that even if degree equivalency were established, the petitioner still lacked 5 years of post-baccalaureate progressive experience since her certificate was earned only ~2 years before filing.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of L-A-C-
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