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 operate her Florida corporation providing real estate development, interior design, remodeling, and decorating services, including short-term rentals and future construction on owned land parcels.
Field: real estate development, interior design, and construction/engineering business · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found, and the AAO did not disturb, that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree based on a foreign bachelor's equivalent plus five years of progressive experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her company, business partnerships, and clientele”
“she has not shown that her company's future staffing levels and business activity stand to provide substantial economic benefits in Florida or the United States.”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
“the Petitioner's experience in her field relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national."”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the submitted letters do not sufficiently establish the prospective impact of the specific endeavor that the Petitioner will focus on”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the record does not substantiate that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of substantial positive economic effects”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's experience in her field relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
Where this case turned
- 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
The AAO withdrew the Director's finding that the endeavor lacked substantial merit (crediting it as entrepreneurial real estate/interior design work) but still dismissed on national importance, illustrating that merit and importance are treated as distinct sub-inquiries within prong 1. The decision also explicitly redirects the Petitioner's personal-qualifications evidence (resume, letters) to prong 2 while declining to reach prongs 2 and 3 as unnecessary.
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.
- INA 203(b)(2)
- 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