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 industrial engineer specializing in lean manufacturing, proposed to found and operate a consulting company implementing smart lean material handling systems, offering software/technology integration, automation, warehouse design, and preventive maintenance services.
Field: industrial engineering / lean manufacturing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional (master's degree in industrial engineering); this was not disputed.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the effect of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would not extend beyond his employer and the clients served, it would not have broader implications for the field”
“the plan lacks details about how many and what type of jobs would be created through his proposed endeavor”
“he has not demonstrated that acting as the CEO of a firm providing engineering services would have sufficient implications in the engineering field or manufacturing industry to be nationally important”
“the fact that DOL is seeking information about the status of labor shortages in STEM fields does not materially change whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of national importance”
“we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that it "has significant potential to employ U.S. workers."”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the plan lacks details about how many and what type of jobs would be created through his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“it does not show that his specific proposed endeavor has the potential for broader implications in that field or the manufacturing industry”
AAO decision text
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
Notable
AAO found the Director had improperly treated the RFE-response business plan as a material change under Matter of Izummi, and reversed that threshold finding, agreeing to consider the business plan as elaboration of the initially proposed endeavor rather than a new endeavor; nonetheless dismissed on prong 1 merits.
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)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of Izummi
- 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