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 establish and manage her own business consulting company assisting U.S. and Kazakhstani companies with import/export trade, while also supporting women entrepreneurs in Kazakhstan.
Field: business consulting (finance and banking, international trade with Kazakhstan) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director determined, and the AAO did not disturb, that the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional under EB-2.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“she has not described how her consulting business will have a broader impact on the field beyond the individual clients she will serve”
“the business plan does not adequately support these projections of job and revenue creation and does not explain in detail how its forecasts were calculated”
“merely showing that a petitioner plans to work in that industry is not sufficient, in and of itself, to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“the professor's observations rely more on generalizations about the results of typical business activity”
“they do not discuss the Petitioner's endeavor or specific impact thereof, including any potential broader implications of her work”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan does not adequately support these projections of job and revenue creation and does not explain in detail how its forecasts were calculated”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not discuss the Petitioner's endeavor or specific impact thereof, including any potential broader implications of her work”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“The articles and reports do not discuss the Petitioner's specific endeavor or how it, in particular, would have a broader impact”
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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
The AAO withdrew the Director's finding on substantial merit but still found national importance lacking, emphasizing that unsupported economic projections (jobs, revenue, taxes) and generalized expert/foreign-policy arguments could not establish national importance; declined to reach prongs 2 and 3.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
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