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 proposed to establish and operate a company in Louisiana specializing in construction, industrial assembly of metallic structures, and mechanical maintenance services, intending to hire dozens of employees.
Field: construction and industrial assembly of metallic structures / mechanical maintenance · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO withdrew Director's findings that Petitioner met the 10-years-experience and licensure/certification criteria at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) and (C), leaving only one of the required three criteria satisfied, so no final merits determination was reached.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“he has not provided a basis for these projections or presented evidence indicating that the benefits to the regional or national economy”
“the national shortage of refinery operators and industrial maintenance professionals is not, in and of itself, sufficient to establish the national importance”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his clients to impact the industry more broadly”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“The Petitioner has not established that these letters are from "current or former employer(s)," as opposed to colleagues”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“he has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that this qualifies as a certification for a particular occupation”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“he has not provided a basis for these projections or presented evidence indicating that the benefits...would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text - resume experience · ignored
- media · 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
- 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 independently disposed of the case on two separate grounds: it withdrew the Director's favorable findings on two exceptional-ability criteria (leaving Petitioner short of the required three), and separately found the national-importance prong of Dhanasar unmet, reserving 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.
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
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