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 work as General and Operations Manager of a planned auto parts wholesaling firm headquartered in Florida, using her experience in purchasing, sourcing, HR, finance, and strategic leadership.
Field: auto parts wholesaling / operations management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director determined, and AAO did not disturb, that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the articles submitted, which describe the responsibilities of a general and operations manager, do not establish her specific proposed endeavor would have a broader impact on the auto parts wholesale or international purchasing fields”
“she did not establish it will have substantial national implications or have a broader impact on her field, extending beyond her company and the individuals she directly serves”
“the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these projections”
“these figures do not establish that the Petitioner's company would operate on a scale rising to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these projections”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
- recommendation letter · ignored
- other · discounted
“do not establish her specific proposed endeavor would have a broader impact on the auto parts wholesale or international purchasing fields”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
Petitioner raised a procedural argument that the Director imposed 'novel substantive and evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth in regulations' and failed to give due regard to evidence; AAO rejected both arguments, affirming preponderance-of-evidence standard was properly applied and that the Director had reviewed all evidence.
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
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
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