dismissedJUN262024_07B52032024-06-26 · appeal · Texas Service Center
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, president of a nonprofit she and her spouse founded, proposed to run an international development project in Honduras involving coffee exportation to employ Hondurans and reduce unlawful migration to the United States, with plans to replicate the model in other high-migration countries.
Field: international development · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director and AAO agreed the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the evidence is insufficient to confirm that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will likely impact the field of international development or that its potential prospective impact has national implications within the field”
“she has not explained how her proposed endeavor will likely improve or advance the field of international development”
“the Petitioner "has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation."”
“merely working in an important area is insufficient to establish the national importance of her specific proposed endeavor”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the area in which the Petitioner plans to work; rather, we must focus on "the specific endeavor that [she] proposes to undertake."”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“she has not explained how her proposed endeavor will likely improve or advance the field of international development”
AAO decision text - resume experience · credited
- recommendation letter · credited
- other · discounted
“the U.S. government and its partners have been engaging in the same types of international development work that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor seeks to engage in”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
2,501coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
The AAO relied on USAID and White House policy documents submitted by the Petitioner herself on appeal to show the U.S. government was already conducting similar international development work in Honduras, using this to undercut the claimed national importance of her specific endeavor.
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
- 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