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, an IT specialist, proposed to serve as CEO and IT specialist of her own new information management consulting business, designing and implementing custom Oracle ERP software solutions for medium-sized U.S. businesses in California.
Field: information technology / information management consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO agreed, that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“for medium-sized U.S. based businesses in California”
“without sufficient documentary evidence that her proposed job duties ... would impact the information management consulting industry more broadly, rather than benefiting her consulting business and her proposed clients”
“the record does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized”
“merely working in the information management and software development fields or starting an information management consulting business to support these industries is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the record does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence based on these recommendation letters to demonstrate the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor will rise to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“The industry reports and articles submitted do not discuss any of the Petitioner's claimed economic, environmental, and societal impacts specifically attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- 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 discussed the STEM/critical-and-emerging-technologies policy guidance (finance technologies) but found the Petitioner's asserted link to that list unsupported by the record. Because prong 1 was dispositive, AAO expressly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C-.
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
- Matter of E-M-
- 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