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 start a company offering project management, logistics, and operational consulting services (supply chain optimization, production scheduling, process improvement, etc.) to manufacturing and industrial clients in the United States.
Field: project management / industrial and manufacturing operations consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director and AAO agreed Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional based on a bachelor's degree in international management and five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The business plan also does not articulate how the Petitioner's company's achievement of these objectives would extend beyond the company and its clients to impact his field more broadly on a level indicative of national importance.”
“The business plan does not establish that such income is significant in comparison to other project management companies or otherwise represents a substantial positive economic effect indicative of national importance.”
“The business plan also projects employing 14 people by its fifth year, but does not show that this is a significantly high employment level for project management companies or otherwise demonstrates job creation on a level commensurate with national importance.”
“A-H-, T-Y-, and K-T- praise the Petitioner's skills and past work for their company, but do not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
“Consequently, the Petitioner does not meet the first Dhanasar prong.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“does not establish that such income is significant in comparison to other project management companies or otherwise represents a substantial positive economic effect”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“praise the Petitioner's skills and past work for their company, but do not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - resume experience · credited
Where this case turned
- NEW letters dont address endeavor · p1
- 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
Notable
AAO expressly rejected Petitioner's claim that the Director applied a heightened evidentiary standard, citing case law that agencies need not address every piece of evidence or claim when reasoned consideration is given.
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)
- 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