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 planned to serve as CEO of a consulting company assisting small and medium-sized enterprises in the paper coil products industry, aiming to improve manufacturing efficiency, sustainability, and industry expertise.
Field: mechanical engineering / paper coil products industry consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO agreed, that Petitioner's MBA established EB-2 advanced-degree professional eligibility; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner has not established, however, that his company's work in these areas would extend beyond the individual SMEs that would retain his company's services to impact his field more broadly.”
“These projections do not indicate the company would have a substantial positive economic effect in an industry that the professional plan states had a revenue of $15 billion in 2023”
“Our assessment of national importance does not focus on the importance of a field or governmental initiatives in general, but instead "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
“praise the Petitioner's work in past positions for their companies, but do not discuss his proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“does not discuss the potential prospective impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“These projections do not indicate the company would have a substantial positive economic effect”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO specifically rejected the expert letter's argument that alignment with federal initiatives (EPA Sustainable Materials Management Program, DOE Better Plants Program, NIST Manufacturing USA Initiative) established national importance, reiterating that the inquiry focuses on the specific endeavor, not the importance of the field or governmental programs generally.
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.
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Every national-importance claim was uncited; past-employer letters never discussed the proposed company, and the expert letter's asserted benefits stayed with client SMEs; tiny projections against a $15B industry failed prong one.
Letters must discuss the proposed endeavor, not just praise past work; support each impact claim with cited evidence, and know your projections will be weighed against the industry's actual scale.
moderate
economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · government_interest
person_focused
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