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 sought to establish a Florida-based consulting practice providing architectural and sustainable-construction project management services to individual, corporate, and government clients, aiming to promote wider adoption of sustainable building certification standards and train other professionals in the field.
Field: architecture and sustainable construction project management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO agreed, that Petitioner's foreign master's degree is equivalent to a U.S. master's degree, satisfying the advanced-degree requirement.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the past record and the potential prospective impact of the proposed endeavor point to a limited impact within the companies and/or clients that engage the petitioner for his consulting services”
“he did not further explain or document how he proposes to assist with shaping and developing government strategies regarding sustainable construction in the United States or the specific government agencies with which he would collaborate”
“The Petitioner relies on a hypothetical example, but has not, for instance, quantified the impact of the U.S.-based projects that he is working on”
“the Petitioner's intent to work in this field alone is not sufficient to establish the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“Evidence of a petitioner's skills, expertise, and record of success generally relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - media · credited
- certification membership · credited
- resume experience · credited
- degree · credited
All 6 evidence items
- other · discounted
“the record does not show how any influence he may have exercised to advance certification of the project in 2013 would carry over to his planned activities in the current U.S. market”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- 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 distinguishes an unpublished AAO decision (In re 46885) cited by the Petitioner as analogous, emphasizing it is non-precedential and factually distinguishable. AAO also discounts Petitioner's use of a hypothetical example (the USCIS Texas Service Center building) as insufficiently quantified evidence of national economic impact.
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)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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