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 structural/civil engineer, planned to work as a self-employed consulting engineer/entrepreneur providing structural engineering design and consulting services, technical instruction, and renewable energy engineering support to companies, architects, and developers.
Field: structural/civil engineering consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Petitioner adequately documented advanced degree qualification despite lack of credentials evaluation; Director did not contest this.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The record, however, does not identify any future U.S. projects that he proposes to undertake that are similar in economic scale to the aforementioned projects.”
“the evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate the national importance of any particular engineering consulting work proposed by the Petitioner”
“we find that the Petitioner has not shown his proposed endeavor in this case stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and its clients to impact the industry more broadly”
“the record does not include sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future engineering consulting work”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“this documentation helps show the merit of the Petitioner's proposed work, the evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate the national importance”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“The record, however, does not identify any future U.S. projects that he proposes to undertake that are similar in economic scale”
AAO decision text - degree · 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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO analogized to Dhanasar's own example of a classroom teacher whose endeavor lacks broader field impact, applying it to reject the engineering consultant's national importance claim; past international projects (Canada, Indonesia) were found not comparable in scale to any proposed future U.S. work.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- INA 203(b)(2)
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution