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 start and operate a commercial flooring business in Florida, aiming to offer new expertise, resources, and methodologies to the industry and foster a more competitive and efficient market.
Field: commercial flooring industry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO withdrew the Director's finding that the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; the employer letters submitted to show five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience did not meet 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g) requirements.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established
“the Petitioner had not established his company's prospective impact within the industry, or its potential economic impact, would reach the level of national importance”
“the Petitioner had not established his business management abilities or methodologies would advance or improve upon those already available in the United States”
“the letter was not probative evidence because the author mostly repeated the information in the business plan to assert the national importance of the Petitioner's endeavor without independent analysis”
“the record did not contain any communications with potential clients, companies, or individuals to demonstrate that the proposed endeavor would have substantial positive economic impact in the region”
“they focused on the importance of the industry, not the proposed endeavor which is the focus of Dhanasar's prong one”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner had not established his company's prospective impact within the industry, or its potential economic impact, would reach the level of national importance”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the author mostly repeated the information in the business plan to assert the national importance of the Petitioner's endeavor without independent analysis”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“were not authored by his employers, did not have the address of the employers, and did not contain his job duties”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner does not raise any new facts or assert the Director erred in analyzing prongs two and three”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
- 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
AAO explicitly states that even if Petitioner prevailed on prong one, the unchallenged failure of prongs two and three (adopted from the prior decision) would alone dispose of the combined motion; it nonetheless addresses prong one arguments further. AAO also distinguishes a non-precedent decision cited by Petitioner as non-binding under 8 C.F.R. 103.3(c) and invokes Edwards v. U.S. Att'y Gen. to justify its adopt-and-affirm practice as providing 'individualized consideration.'
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(c)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- Matter of Coelho
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to show his flooring business endeavor itself (not the industry generally) would have national-level economic or field impact, and letters lacked independent analysis or specificity.
For prong one, submit evidence quantifying the specific endeavor's prospective scale (jobs, revenue, regional impact) rather than general industry importance or interest letters.
vague
economic_growth_generic · field_advancement
person_focused
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