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, a Brazilian financial advisor and businessman, initially proposed to continue as an entrepreneur driving profitable business opportunities for U.S. companies, later refining this on RFE to leading a Florida short-term-rental property management company as its commercial director.
Field: financial advisory / real estate / short-term rental property management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“does not clarify which particular communities will be served, how the proposed endeavor will serve those communities”
“the specific proposed endeavor (which would be localized to the companies or clients for whom the [P]etitioner would provide”
“the record does not reflect the benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from [the Petitioner's] work”
“the Petitioner's references on appeal to generalized industry reports and articles in the record is misplaced”
“the business plan presents a new set of facts that cannot establish eligibility”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“does not appear to correspond to the proposed endeavor described at the time of filing”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“none of the industry reports and articles address the Petitioner, his proposed 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
- 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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO emphasized internal inconsistencies (five concurrent full-time jobs; RFE-submitted income figures far below the wage listed on the I-140) to discount the RFE business plan as an impermissible 'new set of facts' under Katigbak/Izummi, and declined to reach prongs two and three after finding prong one dispositive.
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- 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