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 planned to work as president and real estate broker of his own full-service real estate agency in Florida, focusing on attracting foreign investment for large-scale residential and commercial development projects.
Field: real estate brokerage/development · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the prospective impact of the Petitioner's endeavor would not extend beyond his prospective clients to lead to broader implications to the industry or field”
“the Petitioner continues to rely on the cumulative impact of the real estate industry and foreign direct investment rather than explaining how his specific endeavor will result in broader implications”
“the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these projections”
“several of the Petitioner's claims of national importance could reasonably apply to any individual working in real estate development”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which a petitioner may work”
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 - recommendation letter · discounted
“they provide little probative value in establishing the national importance of his endeavor as they primarily focus on his prior experience”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the articles in the record discuss the cumulative benefits of his field, and do not discuss the Petitioner's specific endeavor”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the Petitioner has not shown how these investments, even if realized, will result in broader implications to his field”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“they do not establish that the Petitioner's individual work will result in broader implications to his field”
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 explicitly distinguishes between substantial merit (conceded) and national importance (failed), and reserves prongs 2 and 3 plus threshold EB-2 classification determination as unnecessary given the dispositive prong 1 failure. Notes that investor letters of intent and expert opinion letters focused on industry generally rather than petitioner's specific endeavor.
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 Caron Int'l
- Matter of D-R-
- 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