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 work in aging services management, with a long-term goal of establishing a nonprofit organization integrating psychological services into elder care systems, developing a digital platform, forming healthcare partnerships, and advancing research on virtual aging support.
Field: aging services management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS and AAO agreed the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional with a bachelor's in psychology and a master's in aging services management.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established
“the record lacks adequate evidence showing that the Petitioner will offer new methodologies or innovations to advance the elder care management through her endeavor”
“Merely working in an important field or profession is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“the Petitioner has not provided any documentation to show economic impact of her endeavor”
“the Petitioner's assertions without corroborating documentation of the endeavor's broad impact do not establish the endeavor's national importance”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established
“her skills and knowledge are limited to two internships and her recent employment at the adult health care center that began a month before filing of the petition”
“these letters do not adequately explain how the Petitioner's work has been utilized in the field or otherwise constitute a record of success”
“the record lacks documentation and corroborating evidence regarding the Petitioner's plan or progress towards achieving these goals”
“the record does not demonstrate interest from potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- citations publications · discounted
“does not claim that she received high number of citations for this publication, or such publication is directly tied to her innovations or solutions in the field”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“these letters do not adequately explain how the Petitioner's work has been utilized in the field or otherwise constitute a record of success”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“it does not address her proposed endeavor or its potential impact”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the record lacks documentation and corroborating evidence regarding the Petitioner's plan or progress towards achieving these goals”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“her skills and knowledge are limited to two internships and her recent employment at the adult health care center that began a month before filing of the petition”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- other · 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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- 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 decision contains a pronoun inconsistency in the conclusion, referring to the Petitioner as 'he' ('we conclude that he has not established she is eligible') despite consistently using 'she' throughout the rest of the decision — likely an OCR artifact or drafting error. Both prongs 1 and 2 were found dispositive together; the AAO declined to reach prong 3. The Petitioner's master's degree was obtained in August 2024, only months before the petition was filed, and her work experience consisted largely of internships and one month of employment, making this an unusually early-career NIW attempt.
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to show the specific endeavor's national-scale impact (prong 1) and lacked record of success, progress, or third-party interest establishing she was well-positioned to advance it (prong 2).
Tie evidence directly to the specific endeavor's prospective scale/impact and document concrete progress, partnerships, or third-party interest—not just credentials or field importance.
vague
field_advancement · public_health · economic_growth_generic
person_focused
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, an aircraft mechanic and instructor, proposed to enhance aviation maintenance training programs, support
- The Petitioner seeks EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree with a national inter
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver of the job offer requirement, but the substance of the proposed e
- The Beneficiary, sponsored by a private airline, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability in a
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; the sp