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 Brazilian civil engineer, proposed to work in the U.S. constructing and renovating commercial buildings such as banks and corporate offices, later specifying plans to launch her own civil engineering consulting company in Florida.
Field: civil engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Petitioner met the advanced degree/exceptional ability threshold via bachelor's degree plus five years progressive experience; Director found this satisfied and it was not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
“the record contains insufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to her specific work and proposed endeavor.”
“Nor does the evidence demonstrate that the use of the Petitioner's experience will reach beyond benefitting her own company and clients or have broader implications within the field of civil engineering.”
“this document was not created until after the Director issued the RFE in February 2022.”
“The projections of the Petitioner's company's revenue and job creation as stated in the business plan are also unsupported in the record.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“this document was not created until after the Director issued the RFE in February 2022”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“these qualities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the Petitioner does not explain its relevance”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner relies upon the evidence she previously submitted”
AAO decision text - resume experience · credited
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
- 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 found an internal inconsistency between the Petitioner's personal statement (claiming she would be CEO/Lead Consultant) and her own business plan's personnel projections (listing another individual as CEO/Lead Consultant), citing Matter of Ho on unresolved inconsistencies.
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
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of Katigbak
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
- The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
- The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
- The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
- The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod