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 environmental engineer, proposed to establish her own environmental consulting company specializing in recycling programs and sustainable solid waste management for local governments and municipalities.
Field: environmental engineering / recycling and solid waste consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO noted it was unclear whether the Petitioner's Colombian 'titulo de Ingeniero Ambiental' is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree and whether her prior jobs constituted post-baccalaureate progressive experience in the specialty, but expressly reserved this issue as unnecessary given the dispositive prong-one failure.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Director found that the Petitioner had not presented evidence that sufficiently demonstrated that her endeavor will broadly enhance societal welfare because the benefits it offers would not extend beyond her company”
“the Director found that the evidence did not demonstrate that the endeavor had the potential to provide substantial positive economic effects”
“In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work.”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated how her endeavor has the significant potential to broadly enhance societal welfare or cultural or artistic enrichment, or to contribute to the advance of a valuable technology or field of study”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“The record does not contain any educational evaluation to evidence the degree's equivalency.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“It is unclear whether her positions at either job can be considered post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty as the regulation requires.”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the benefits it offers would not extend beyond her company”
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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
Notable
AAO expressly reserved the threshold EB-2 classification issue (unclear foreign degree equivalency and whether prior work qualified as progressive specialty experience) as unnecessary to reach because the national-importance prong was dispositive; also faulted the Director's RFE for not raising the EB-2 classification issue.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
- INA 291
- Matter of E-M-
- 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