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 Brazilian-trained attorney, proposed to establish a for-profit mediation service based in Delaware to help divorcing couples and families resolve disputes, with an initial emphasis on serving Brazilian immigrant clients and later claims of national/online expansion.
Field: family law / mediation services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO agreed with SCOPS that Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; did not reach exceptional ability claim.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we conclude that the Petitioner has not adequately and consistently described her proposed endeavor”
“information about the field as a whole does not establish the impact of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
“Employment in a nationally important field, profession, or specialty does not necessarily confer national importance on the specific endeavor”
“the Petitioner's assertion that her main goal is to attract Brazilian clients tends to restrict, rather than broaden, the scope”
“The Petitioner offered no support for her general speculation that her proposed endeavor would produce these effects”
“significant anomalies in the original business plan raise questions about the origin and reliability of that document”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established
“the Petitioner has not shown that she has any past experience establishing and running a mediation service with offices in multiple locations”
“The record does not readily establish that the model is already fully developed and ready to implement”
“the record does not unequivocally support SCOPS' summary conclusion that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“significant anomalies in the original business plan raise questions about the origin and reliability of that document”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“did not explain how her proposed endeavor would have national importance”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“The dates and employers shown in a copy of her Portuguese-language resume does not match its purported English translation”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“The Petitioner does not explain how these letters establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
All 6 evidence items
- citations publications · discounted
“The articles do not discuss the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor, and therefore they do not establish its national importance”
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
- 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
- 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
AAO flagged serious anomalies in the business plan, including irrelevant passages referencing a food-service company, car mechanics, and a music-education/tech business, suggesting the document may have been copied from unrelated templates. It also found the Petitioner's submitted resume translation did not match her Portuguese original and instead described unrelated corporate jobs, raising broader reliability concerns under Matter of Ho. The AAO also noted the Petitioner's F-2 status barred her from working in the U.S., and that a Washington D.C. law firm handled filings despite her claimed Massachusetts residence, without a Form G-28 on file.
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of Izummi
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