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 continue developing his Florida-based company that provides specialized educational programs, including emotional intelligence programs, to U.S. schools, businesses, and individuals.
Field: education administration / business · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Petitioner established equivalency to a U.S. bachelor's degree plus five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience, satisfying the advanced degree professional classification.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“they do not offer persuasive detail concerning the impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or how such impact would extend beyond his prospective students and/or clients”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“the Petitioner has not established how his company in the educational services sector stands to sufficiently extend beyond his students and/or clients to impact the field more broadly”
“The Petitioner did not sufficiently describe the origin or basis for these projections and, even if he had, they would not establish the national importance”
“the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not offer persuasive detail concerning the impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or how such impact would extend beyond his prospective students and/or clients”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“The Petitioner did not sufficiently describe the origin or basis for these projections”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's expertise and record of success in previous positions are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
The AAO expressly distinguished expertise/track record evidence as relevant to prong 2 rather than prong 1, and cited Dhanasar's own facts (teaching activities lacking national impact) as an analogy for why the Petitioner's company failed to show impact beyond his students/clients.
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 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