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 aeronautical engineer, proposed to work in the United States as an aviation consultant, seeking to join major aircraft manufacturers or consult for aviation companies while also eventually giving motivational talks to engineering students.
Field: aeronautical/aviation engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director incorrectly found the Petitioner qualified via a U.S. master's degree; the AAO instead found she qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on a foreign bachelor's equivalent plus five years of progressive experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession where the Petitioner will work, but the specific impact ofthat proposed endeavor”
“she has not provided any documentation of what that specific impact would be or how it would extend beyond her consulting clients”
“the Petitioner has not specified whether she will work for airports, Boeing, or "large and medium-sized companies,"”
“the record does not quantify or document what economic impact would be attributable specifically to the Petitioner's endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“only speak to the Petitioner's past work in Colombia and provide no information about her U.S. endeavor”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“she has education and successful work experience relating to her endeavor, she has no business plan or other specific model”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“she has no business plan or other specific model for her future activities beyond seeking consulting work”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
- other · discounted
“the record does not quantify or document what economic impact would be attributable specifically to the Petitioner's endeavor”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- other · discounted
“the various documents regarding U.S. government interest in aviation safety pertain to the field in general, not the Petitioner's endeavor in particular”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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 corrected the Director's erroneous rationale for the threshold EB-2 finding (basing it on a foreign bachelor's equivalent plus experience rather than a nonexistent U.S. master's degree) while still agreeing the Petitioner qualified. Despite reserving prongs 2 and 3, the AAO added extensive dicta on deficiencies (no business plan, no progress evidence, non-independent letters) to guide 'any future proceedings.'
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)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)
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