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, CEO of a specialty lighting company, proposed to expand his consulting business domestically and internationally, offering commercial management advisory, partnership enablement, and export consulting services.
Field: specialty lighting consulting/business · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found threshold EB-2 classification not established, but AAO reserved this issue as unnecessary given dispositive prong 1 failure.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
“The Petitioner, however, does not provide sufficient detail of the basis of these projections, or adequately explain how these staffing targes and revenue forecasts will be realized”
“although an individual's experience, qualifications, contributions, and achievements are material, they are misplaced in the context of the first Dhanasar prong”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“the record does not establish how the proposed endeavor will have broader implications beyond benefitting the Petitioner's clients and companies he elects to work with”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“does not provide sufficient detail of the basis of these projections, or adequately explain how these staffing targes and revenue forecasts will be realized”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the record does not establish how the proposed endeavor will have broader implications beyond benefitting the Petitioner's clients”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or will create a broad impact without providing evidence to corroborate such claims”
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
- 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
The Director had found the endeavor to have substantial merit and that petitioner was well-positioned (prong 2), but AAO focused solely on national importance within prong 1 as dispositive, declining to reach prongs 2 and 3 or the underlying EB-2 classification issue.
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
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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