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 civil engineer, proposed to become a partner in a limited liability company providing construction management and engineering consulting services, aiming to reduce building costs and increase competitiveness of U.S. companies.
Field: civil engineering / construction management consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Petitioner established a bachelor's degree equivalency in civil engineering plus over five years of progressive experience, qualifying as an advanced degree professional under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2); this was not contested on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“This staffing plan does not indicate significant potential to employ United States workers in an industry that the business plan states employs more than 9 million people.”
“The business plan does not explain how these projections were made and does not establish that the company's income and tax payments would have a substantial positive economic effect”
“our assessment of national importance does not focus on the importance of issues affecting an occupation, industry or our nation in general, but "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
“none of the articles mention the Petitioner and they do not demonstrate the potential prospective impact of his proposed endeavor.”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company's clients to impact his field more broadly”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“The business plan does not explain how these projections were made and does not establish that the company's income and tax payments would have a substantial positive economic effect”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“These letters attest to the Petitioner's experience and accomplishments, but do not address his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“none of the articles mention the Petitioner and they do not demonstrate the potential prospective impact of his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
Notable
The AAO noted that supportive recommendation letters, while credible as to the Petitioner's skill and experience, were 'more relevant to the second Dhanasar prong' but that prong was never reached because prong 1 was dispositive; an expert letter about assisting U.S. companies doing business in Brazil/Latin America was rejected because the business plan itself did not describe such services.
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
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
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