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 establish a U.S.-based educational consulting company (described as a 'public-benefit, education-sector implementation model') providing nationwide expertise in school-based emergency preparedness and disaster response, drawing on her teaching and disaster-preparedness coordination experience in the Philippines.
Field: educational consulting / school-based emergency preparedness and disaster response · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS found the Petitioner qualified as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; threshold EB-2 was not at issue on motion.
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“the evidence corroborating her general work experience as a teacher and her practical experience in school-based [redacted] in Philippines does not establish 'that she has obtained skills that render her well-positioned for her proposed role as owner and founder of a U.S.-based educational consulting company with nationwide operations'”
“Experience in a given field may not be sufficient to demonstrate that such person is well-positioned to start a consulting business providing expertise in that field.”
“the Petitioner provided statements, a business plan, and a Model Plan about her proposed consultancy's projected staffing, financial costs, potential clients, and financial support, but did submit meaningful details or evidence corroborating her claims about these projections.”
“Business plans or other similar descriptions of a petitioner's plans, while useful in explaining the petitioner's objectives, should be supported by other independent evidence.”
“the Petitioner's unsubstantiated claims about her consultancy's feasibility and national expansion are not sufficient to meet her burden of proof.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“Business plans or other similar descriptions of a petitioner's plans, while useful in explaining the petitioner's objectives, should be supported by other independent evidence.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the evidence corroborating her general work experience as a teacher and her practical experience in school-based [redacted] in Philippines does not establish that she has obtained skills that render her well-positioned”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
- motion resubmission · discounted
“Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does not constitute the submission of 'new facts.'”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“her academic achievements in the education field, her classroom teaching experience, and her practical experience in school-based emergency preparedness and disaster response management at a local level in the Philippines”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
- Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
- Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
Notable
The motion to reopen was dismissed on purely procedural grounds (no new facts or evidence submitted). The motion to reconsider focused entirely on Prong 2; the AAO did not revisit Prong 1 or Prong 3. The Petitioner argued her consultancy was a 'public-benefit, education-sector implementation model' rather than a speculative startup, but the AAO rejected this framing, holding that the public-benefit characterization does not exempt her from demonstrating financial preparedness and corroborated expansion plans. Several redacted terms (likely related to a specific coordination role or program name, and a 'Model Plan') appear throughout due to (b)(6) redactions in the source document.
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
This was a motion to reopen/reconsider a prior appeal dismissal; petitioner presented no new facts and failed to show the prior decision misapplied law given unsubstantiated business/financial feasibility claims for prong two (well-positioned).
Motions to reopen/reconsider require genuinely new evidence or a demonstrated legal error, not reargument; corroborate business plans with independent evidence of scale and feasibility.
moderate
public_health · field_advancement
person_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