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 lawyer, proposed to continue working as a renewable energy transition attorney counseling solar and wind farm developers in West Virginia, while also conducting scholarly research on renewable energy law and policy using a systematic scoping review methodology.
Field: renewable energy law · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found and AAO agreed Petitioner qualifies as advanced degree professional based on his U.S. law degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner's arguments on appeal focus on the national importance of the subject matter of his endeavor, rather than of the endeavor itself”
“he has not corroborated his claim of its national importance”
“The Petitioner additionally contends that his legal work will result in $1 billion to $3 billion annual investments but did not explain the basis for these projections.”
“merely operating in a geographically depressed area is not sufficient to show national importance”
“the record here indicates confidence on the part of the Petitioner's associates in his ability to impact future energy law or practice, but does not contain a probative basis for these assertions or offer specific detail about how this would be achieved”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“does not contain a probative basis for these assertions or offer specific detail about how this would be achieved”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“he has not shown how his particular research has national importance”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“did not explain the basis for these projections”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
Notable
Petitioner argued the Director improperly relied on the vacated NYSDOT decision, but AAO found the Director's decision properly cited Dhanasar; AAO also clarified that evidence of past success as a predictor of future impact, while more typically a prong-two consideration, was analyzed under prong one because Petitioner himself framed it as evidence of prospective impact.
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
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