dismissedJAN232026_02B52032026-01-23 · appeal · SCOPS Service Center

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 serve as CEO of a construction management company in the United States, focusing on planning, inspecting, and managing private and public infrastructure projects using innovative methodologies to deliver affordable and sustainable services.

Field: civil engineering / construction management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS and AAO both accepted that the Petitioner holds the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in engineering plus at least five years of subsequent employment as an engineer, satisfying the advanced degree requirement.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not include evidence of specific methods or approaches developed by the Petitioner or explain how their use would have implications for civil engineering, national infrastructure, or another relevant field.”

“The business plan is not, however, substantiated by a sufficient basis for these projections, nor are the numbers corroborated by probative evidence sufficient to demonstrate that it is more likely than not”

“The relevant question, however, is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work, but the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake.”

“broad assertions regarding general benefits to the economy and the potential to create jobs will not establish an entrepreneur's qualification for a national interest waiver.”

“the record does not indicate that the business operates in an economically depressed area or that the endeavor would otherwise have substantial positive economic effects.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“The business plan generally speculates that the company's services would result in significant positive outcomes for the United States, but it does not provide independent evidence or otherwise explain how the company would have a prospective national impact.”
AAO decision text
contract revenue · discounted
“the contracts and letters do not address whether or how her proposed endeavor stands to extend beyond her business and the interests of her customers to impact the field.”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“the record does not include evidence to corroborate his assertion.”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“this material discusses subjects tangentially related to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, it does not provide sufficient insight into whether her specific endeavor would have a potential prospective impact of national importance.”
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
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

1,312coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →

Notable

SCOPS had already found prong 1 substantial merit AND prong 2 satisfied, leaving only national importance (prong 1, second element) and prong 3 at issue on appeal. The AAO agreed on substantial merit but found national importance unmet, making prong 1 dispositive without reaching prong 3. The Petitioner's procedural argument — that SCOPS imposed novel evidentiary requirements beyond the preponderance standard — was rejected because she failed to identify any specific error as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v).

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer