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 establish a legal consultancy hub in the United States focused on renewable and clean energy, providing legal/regulatory guidance, facilitating access to government subsidies, and creating a cross-sector collaboration platform, supplemented by a digital research platform, publications, and workshops.
Field: law / sustainable energy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner's foreign bachelor's degree plus over twenty years of experience was evaluated as equivalent to a U.S. Juris Doctorate, but the AAO found this unsupported by legal authority, and the SOC code for lawyers requires a doctoral or professional degree under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2).
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“it is not apparent how the Petitioner's advocacy to simplify and accelerate the development of energy solutions would have global or national implications to the field.”
“the Petitioner did not sufficiently explain or demonstrate how her particular proposed endeavor would have any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation.”
“SCOPS noted, in relevant part, that the Petitioner's role as advocate in an important field, industry, or profession does not establish the national importance of her endeavor.”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established · dispositive
“On appeal, the Petitioner does not address the Director's determination that she did not establish Dhanasar's third prong and has therefore waived this issue.”
“As this issue is dispositive, the Petitioner has not demonstrated her eligibility for the national interest waiver.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“The author of the evaluation did not provide any legal authority in support of this assertion.”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“she does not clarify how her research platforms or books would offer services or information that are not already in existence”
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
- NEW issue waived on appeal · p3
Notable
The AAO first found the underlying EB-2 threshold unmet due to a rejected degree-equivalency evaluation, then held that the Petitioner had waived prong three by not addressing it on appeal (independently dispositive), and additionally found prong one unmet on the merits, declining to reach prong two.
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
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of O-R-E-
- Matter of R-A-M-
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