dismissedJUL082026_04B52032026-07-08 · appeal
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 consulting firm developing cost-effective contract management, regulatory/business compliance, and compensation schemes to help companies balance employee needs with fiscal realities.
Field: labor relations / workforce management and employee relations · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
USCIS and AAO agreed Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional based on foreign law degree plus five years of progressive experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“does not offer a sufficient basis to conclude that the economic effects of the proposed endeavor will affect the U.S. gross domestic product or tax revenues”
“the authors' opinions are largely conclusory and do not adequately explain how the Petitioner's work would produce such nationally important impacts”
“Simply working in an important field is insufficient to establish the proposed endeavor's national importance.”
“he does not demonstrate how his specific endeavor would achieve these goals and have a broader impact on the field, region, or nation”
“the evidence does not establish the proposed endeavor's national importance because they only highlight that the endeavor's impact is to the individual client or companies that hire the Petitioner”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the authors' opinions are largely conclusory and do not adequately explain how the Petitioner's work would produce such nationally important impacts”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“The articles and reports provide only general background information on the aforementioned areas and do not specifically relate to or discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - resume experience · ignored
“generally immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong, whether a specific, prospective, proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
2,501coded 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
AAO noted in a footnote that USCIS had determined without analysis that Petitioner was well-positioned to advance his endeavor (prong 2), yet AAO still declined to reach prong 2 or 3 after finding prong 1 dispositive.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of Caron Int'l
- Matter of D-R-
- 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