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 bioengineer, proposed to operate her own company engaged in sustainable prosthetics research and development, designing devices to enhance mobility and sensory function for individuals with limb loss or sensory impairments.
Field: biomedical engineering / prosthetics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The AAO found the petitioner failed to establish a qualifying U.S. or foreign equivalent bachelor's or advanced degree (her Venezuelan 'technician' and 'engineer' certificates were unsubstantiated as bachelor's equivalents per EDGE and lacked academic records/evaluations), and also failed to meet at least three of the exceptional-ability criteria under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii).
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the industry reports generally describe the industry's importance and do not relate to the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake”
“the record does not include any probative evidence corroborating this assertion, such as the availability and source of the funds and transaction records”
“these projections lack corroborating evidence that would objectively substantiate them”
“rather than the importance of field or industry itself”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the record does not contain any evidence independently substantiating her claim that this degree is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the above referenced evidence focuses on her experience and skills and relates to Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“these projections lack corroborating evidence that would objectively substantiate them”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“she reasserts... general industry articles, thus, do not establish a significant potential to employ U.S. workers or substantial positive economic impact”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the industry reports generally describe the industry's importance and do not relate to the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake”
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
Notable
The AAO relied on the AACRAO EDGE database to evaluate foreign degree equivalency, finding the petitioner's Venezuelan 'technician' and 'engineer' titles did not establish a U.S. bachelor's equivalent. The decision is unusual in resting dismissal on two independently dispositive grounds: failure to establish underlying EB-2 classification (both advanced degree and exceptional ability tracks) and failure of Dhanasar prong one, declining to reach prongs two and three.
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.
- Matter of E-M-
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