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 lawyer, sought to establish his own immigration law firm to provide legal services—such as asylum applications, work permits, family petitions, and court representation—to immigrants in the United States.
Field: immigration law · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS denied on the basis that the record lacked a certified English translation of the Petitioner's foreign degree; the Petitioner showed on appeal that this had previously been provided, overcoming that basis.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the issue in this petition is not whether an employer or client would benefit from the endeavor, but whether the endeavor has broad implications with substantial positive effects”
“individually tailored services help serve specific needs of an employer or client, by their very nature, they do not represent broadly applicable measures that a wide range of companies can readily adopt”
“Lacking from the record is an indication of the extent to which the Petitioner's endeavor would have substantial positive economic effects rather than incremental or nominal impacts”
“Nominal services in an industry are not sufficient to meet the national importance requirement under the Dhanasar framework”
“USCIS focuses on the specific endeavor that must be of national importance-here a small immigration law firm serving the immigrant community-rather than evaluating the work that occurs in the Petitioner's occupation or industry”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“Nominal services in an industry are not sufficient to meet the national importance requirement under the Dhanasar framework.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“spoke highly of his abilities, experience, and positive personal characteristics, but they did not support his claims that his proposed endeavor would be of national importance”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
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
The decision states 'each considered an independent and alternative basis for the decision,' but only the prong-one national importance finding was actually adjudicated (the threshold degree-translation issue was overcome and prongs two and three were expressly reserved), making the 'alternative basis' language somewhat formulaic/inapplicable here.
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
- Flores v. Garland
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