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 and entrepreneur, sought to establish and lead a U.S. company providing 3D printing construction, micro-housing development, and tech-integrated real estate services aimed at affordable housing for low- and middle-income residents.
Field: civil engineering / real estate technology (affordable housing) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO agreed Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not sufficiently detail the prospective impact of the proposed endeavor, either as providing innovations in the field of real estate development or having substantial economic impact”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“the Petitioner does not adequately explain how these staffing numbers, profit projections, and sale forecasts were calculated, or submit the basis for the multiplier evidence”
“the letter does not explain what the Petitioner's innovative technologies are, aside from naming 3D printing”
“he has not offered sufficient evidence that the areas in which he plans to operate his company are economically depressed”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established
“the record lacks documentation of any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, which might include the establishment of the business as a legal entity”
“the Petitioner has not offered any documentation to show the progress of launching the company in the United States”
“this evidence alone is not adequate to verify progress on his endeavor”
“they do not express interest in using the Petitioner's specific innovations and technologies but explain in general terms”
“the record includes more information about the Petitioner's past achievements as an entrepreneur in the real estate investment in Turkey than about the prospects of his proposed business in the United States”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“does not elaborate on the Petitioner's innovations or unique methodologies that would rise to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“lack corroborating evidence to support that benefits to the regional or national economy... would reach the level of substantial positive economic effects”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the Petitioner has not shown other corroborating evidence that his marketing strategies resulted in obtaining sales, contracts, or clients”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“this evidence alone is not adequate to verify progress on his endeavor”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
All 6 evidence items
- resume experience · credited
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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
- Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
- No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
Notable
AAO withdrew SCOPS' reasoning on both prong 1 (which had found merit/importance met) and prong 2 (finding SCOPS misapplied Dhanasar by conflating it with the national importance analysis), and also expressly withdrew SCOPS' reliance on lack of a U.S. civil engineering license as irrelevant to an entrepreneurial endeavor, yet still independently found both prongs unmet on de novo review.
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. 103.5
- Flores v. Garland
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
On de novo review AAO withdrew the favorable prong-1 finding, and prong 2 failed too: no entity registration, funding, premises, hires, or customer interest, with the record showing more about his Turkish past than U.S. progress.
For an entrepreneur, show concrete U.S. progress (registration, funding, space, hires, customer interest); a generic job-multiplier applied to your company and success abroad do not position you here.
moderate
economic_job_creation · geographic_or_shortage_area · government_interest
person_focused
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