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 product engineer with an MBA, proposed to establish a consulting firm in Michigan to help EV manufacturers improve manufacturing efficiency, supply chain resilience, and financial/pricing strategy, with the aim of accelerating EV adoption and boosting U.S. economic competitiveness.
Field: electric vehicle manufacturing / supply chain and financial consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS found, and AAO did not dispute, that the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on his MBA.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“This broad goal statement is not specific or detailed enough for us to assess the potential prospective impact of it in the abstract”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on the "specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
“the Petitioner's unsupported assertions regarding the potential broad impact of the proposed endeavor are insufficient to meet his burden of proof.”
“does not credibly explain how the Petitioner's consulting and advisory services for his clients, even if beneficial to those clients, have the potential to have a broad impact”
“rather than credibly describing the potential prospective impact of the endeavor, they primarily repeat the information stated by the Petitioner”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“rather than credibly describing the potential prospective impact of the endeavor, they primarily repeat the information stated by the Petitioner”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the record does not sufficiently demonstrate how the Petitioner's claimed approach is unique or how it will broadly impact the field”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“these articles and reports about government initiatives and priorities do not establish the endeavor's national importance”
AAO decision text
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
- 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
Notable
AAO noted the Petitioner mischaracterized a White House Fact Sheet titled 'Delivering Emergency Price Relief for American Families and Defeating the Cost-of-Living Crisis,' which actually criticized EV subsidy mandates rather than supporting EV affordability initiatives as the Petitioner claimed.
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
- INA 203(b)(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