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 electrical engineer, proposed to own and operate her own consulting business providing electrical engineering services (project identification, site assessment, procurement, design, and oversight) with a focus on modernization and sustainability.
Field: electrical engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS found EB-2 classification met; AAO noted a discrepancy regarding whether five years of progressive experience had accrued since the 2019 degree but reserved the issue as unnecessary to the outcome.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not establish the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of national importance”
“working in an industry is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“A shortage of qualified professionals does not render the work of an individual nationally important under the Dhanasar decision”
“the record does not establish the staffing levels, business activity, or location of the company stand to provide the economic impact Dhanasar requires”
“the impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would be limited to her direct clients and would therefore not rise to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“does not establish her proposed endeavor's broader impact as Dhanasar requires”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not further establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“working in an industry is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“does not demonstrate the direct creation of 15 additional jobs in this sector or the above stated tax contributions”
AAO decision text - degree · ignored
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
- 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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
Notable
AAO acknowledged factual errors in the underlying SCOPS decision (wrong pronoun, wrong endeavor description referring to 'nursing consulting services') but deemed them harmless scrivener's errors under Matter of O-R-E-. AAO also reserved the threshold EB-2 issue regarding whether the five-year progressive experience requirement was met given the petition was filed less than five years after the 2019 degree.
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 O-R-E-
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