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, an industrial engineer with airline industry experience, proposed to work as an independent business consultant providing process improvement and efficiency consulting services to companies in aviation, retail, food production, and manufacturing.
Field: industrial engineering / management consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found and AAO agreed Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“he did not further discuss his intentions or identify the specific proposed endeavor he plans to undertake in the United States”
“the business plan does not identify the number or types ofjobs that will be created, the location of these jobs, the wages of these workers, or other details”
“he cannot rely on industry-wide economic data to meet the national importance element of Dhanasar's first prong”
“he has not identified any potential clients in those sectors”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan does not identify the number or types of jobs that will be created, the location of these jobs, the wages of these workers, or other details”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not discuss his specific proposed endeavor or speak to the potential broader implications of his work”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“Neither this letter nor other evidence in the record elaborates on the Petitioner's "unique" approach to management consulting or optimizing internal processes”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, education, and experience are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”
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
Notable
AAO rejected reliance on industry-wide economic statistics (management consulting revenue, air transport industry GDP share, small business economic importance) as insufficient to show the specific endeavor's national importance, reiterating the field-vs-endeavor distinction. Also rejected a STEM/manufacturing competitiveness argument tied to a White House R&D priorities memorandum because Petitioner's consulting work did not clearly involve STEM research or advancement.
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
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution