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 operate a training and development consulting firm that would provide IT/STEM boot camps, career evaluation, networking, and arrange remote work and internship placements for young professionals.
Field: IT/STEM training and workforce development consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; this was not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“she has not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor would serve to impact the industry or field more broadly, rising to the level of national importance.”
“fluctuating opportunities within the general labor market do not demonstrate that her endeavor stands to have an impact on any of the numerous industries”
“the information in the business plan is not supported by objective evidence to demonstrate how her firm would have a prospective national impact”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the information in the business plan is not supported by objective evidence to demonstrate how her firm would have a prospective national impact”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“these nonbinding letters...do not sufficiently demonstrate the prospective national impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to train individuals”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“it does not provide insight into her plan to operate a training and subcontracting firm or show how this specific endeavor”
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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
Notable
The AAO noted the appeal failed to identify any erroneous conclusion of law or fact under 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(1)(v), which it stated was independently grounds for dismissal, before nonetheless addressing the merits. It also cited Flores v. Garland for the proposition that NIW denials are discretionary and cited USCIS Policy Manual guidance specifically discounting STEM teaching/training activities as generally insufficient to show national importance.
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.
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Uncorroborated business projections and generic industry statistics failed to show the specific firm's operations would have national-level economic or field-wide impact, per Dhanasar and F.5(D)(2) STEM guidance.
Support projected job creation/economic impact with objective, corroborated evidence scaled to a national or regional level, not just industry-wide market growth citations.
moderate
economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · stem_positive_factor · us_competitiveness
endeavor_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