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 sought to operate her own company offering eco-friendly interior design services to homeowners, real estate developers, and commercial businesses in a specific local area.
Field: environmental/interior design · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS and AAO agreed the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on a bachelor's degree plus more than five years of progressive experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner did not demonstrate her endeavor's significant potential to employ U.S. workers or offer other economic benefits on a broader scale.”
“the company's long-term business goals do not indicate that the endeavor would have an impact that is beyond the local area where the business would operate.”
“the business plan makes no specific projections about the planned market share and only broadly refers to its "target market"”
“the Petitioner does not demonstrate that her proposed endeavor extends beyond her business and her future clients to impact the field of interior design or any other industries or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level that is commensurate with national importance.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan makes no specific projections about the planned market share and only broadly refers to its "target market"”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner does not explain how her past projects are relevant in determining the potential prospective impact of her proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
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
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
The Petitioner attempted to bolster the first-prong national importance argument by citing her professional credentials and completed past projects; the AAO clarified that such personal-qualification evidence belongs to the second Dhanasar prong and is irrelevant to the endeavor's national importance.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
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