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, an industrial engineer with 14 years of supply chain logistics experience, proposed to build a consulting team providing logistics and supply chain management services to industrial-sector companies in the United States, including studies and recommendations on distribution logistics.
Field: industrial engineering / supply chain management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner holds the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree awarded in 2008, followed by more than five years of progressive experience; Director found him a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, undisputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“Much of the Petitioner's evidence relates to the field of supply chain management generally, rather than his specific proposed endeavor.”
“the record contains insufficient information or evidence regarding the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to show broad potential implications demonstrating national importance.”
“he has not supported these assertions with sufficient independent, objective evidence.”
“the Petitioner's personal statements are not specific or detailed enough for us to assess the potential prospective impact of it in the abstract”
“the record does not include a business plan for the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the record does not include a business plan for the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“does not address the national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · ignored
- resume experience · credited
- certification membership · ignored
All 6 evidence items
- motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner references the same supporting evidence submitted with the original petition and RFE response and does not provide any new evidence.”
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
- 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
Notable
The AAO includes a footnote stating that even if it had addressed the remaining two prongs, it still would have dismissed the appeal, because the Petitioner presented no new evidence on appeal beyond what was already found deficient by the Director.
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- Buletini v. INS
- Matter of L-A-C-
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