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 work as a franchise and business management consultant through his own company, offering financial advisory, strategic planning, and M&A services to small and medium-sized businesses, particularly fast-food restaurants, and to run executive training programs for CFA and CMA designations.
Field: franchise and business management consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO agreed, that Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on his bachelor's in electrical engineering and MBA.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work.”
“the articles and reports do not directly address the Petitioner's specific proposed undertaking and do not adequately explain how his proposed endeavor to provide business management and financial advisory services to businesses through his company offers benefits that extend beyond his company and its clients”
“the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor stands to impact or significantly reduce the claimed national shortage.”
“a shortage of qualified professionals alone is not sufficient to demonstrate eligibility for the national interest waiver.”
“the record does not contain sufficient evidence supporting the income projections or staffing requirements.”
“the record does not sufficiently demonstrate that his instructional or teaching activities offer benefits that extend beyond his students or trainees to impact the field of business management, the field of finance, or the field of accounting more broadly.”
“neither letter explains how the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- other · discounted
“the articles and reports do not directly address the Petitioner's specific proposed undertaking”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the record does not contain sufficient evidence supporting the income projections or staffing requirements.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“neither letter explains how the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · ignored
- certification membership · ignored
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
- 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
The Petitioner cited two prior non-precedent AAO decisions involving extraordinary ability petitions to support his argument; the AAO rejected these as non-binding and factually distinguishable. The Petitioner also raised a regulatory argument under 20 C.F.R. 656.3 regarding self-employed individuals filing labor certifications, which the AAO did not directly address given the dispositive prong 1 failure.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
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