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 civil/agricultural engineer with construction project management experience, proposed to be an entrepreneur developing and expanding a homebuilding and construction company, including a goal of providing low-income housing construction projects.
Field: civil engineering / construction and homebuilding · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO found the Petitioner met the EB-2 advanced degree requirement via two bachelor's-equivalent degrees plus more than five years of progressive experience, despite the Director not having addressed this.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the information does not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or explain how it would be of national importance”
“the U.S. Department of Labor directly addresses the shortage of workers through the labor certification process”
“merely working in an important field or profession is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“the business plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections”
“the Petitioner has not established that, even based on these unsupported projections, its activity stands to provide "substantial economic benefits"”
“the Petitioner's resume and recommendation letters only address his past accomplishments as an agricultural and civil engineer and project manager”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his clients to impact the field of construction or project management more broadly”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“his expertise pertains to Dhanasar's second prong, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“these articles and industry reports explain the importance of his field...the information does not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“the Petitioner has not established that, even based on these unsupported projections, its activity stands to provide "substantial economic benefits"”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“they do not demonstrate the national importance of his endeavor's "potential prospective impact"”
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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
Notable
AAO noted the Director made a typographical/clerical error referencing a different petitioner and occupation (aviation) in the denial, and that the Petitioner's own brief repeated this error; AAO treated it as harmless. AAO also rejected a HUBZone-location argument as not equating to Dhanasar's 'economically depressed area' economic-effects language absent proof of actual HUBZone certification.
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 L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)
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