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 proposed to run a consultancy offering manufacturing reliability, safety, and workforce training services, while also developing AI/ML and mixed-reality software platforms for equipment maintenance forecasting and STEM workforce training.
Field: industrial/manufacturing consulting and software (AI/ML, mixed reality training platforms) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“Here, the nature of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is unclear.”
“the record remains unclear as to whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to provide reliability and maintenance engineering consultancy services as an industrial-organizational technical consultant, or to develop software applications.”
“the scope of the Petitioner's software is also vague and ambiguous.”
“The record also does not clearly delineate the Petitioner's target clientele and, therefore, who would be impacted by his future work.”
“we conclude the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated either the substantial merit or the national importance of his proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is not sufficiently specific or consistent to establish the substantial merit or national importance”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“there are questions regarding how the Petitioner's development of his 'novel and propriety' software would be affected by the intellectual property provisions of his employment contract”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“the Petitioner has not provided documentary evidence corroborating his claim to invest $100,000 of his personal funds”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Notable
AAO noted in a footnote that even if the endeavor's substantive nature were clarified, the employment contract's IP assignment and non-competition clauses raised serious concerns under prongs 1 and 2, advising the Petitioner to address these in any future NIW filing, though it declined to formally reach those prongs.
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
- Matter of Ho
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