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 sought to continue his self-employed IT consulting business providing software quality assurance services to U.S. companies and to train individuals to become software testers to fill an IT skills gap.
Field: software quality assurance / IT consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found, and AAO agreed, that the Petitioner qualified as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; this was not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner's statements and business plan outline generalized descriptions of the services that the Petitioner intends to provide”
“the record does not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and its clientele to impact the field of computing, the software industry, or the U.S. economy more broadly”
“the costs and earnings projections are not supported by probative evidence”
“shortages in a field do not demonstrate that the Petitioner's endeavor stands to have an impact on the broader field”
“The relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
“It is not clear how a company of the size and scope described in the business plan would positively affect "millions of people and organizations"”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the costs and earnings projections are not supported by probative evidence”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the opinion letter does not explain how the Petitioner's specific endeavor ... will have a prospective national impact on the economy”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the articles and industry reports do not include insight into how any specific endeavor proposed by the Petitioner rises to the level of 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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
Notable
AAO noted the expert opinion letter's use of the RISE entrepreneurial-readiness assessment was misplaced under prong 1, observing it was more relevant to prong 2, which the AAO declined to reach; the decision cited a Fifth Circuit case (Flores v. Garland) on the discretionary nature of NIW grants.
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
- Matter of L-A-C-
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