The Petitioner, an investment associate, proposed to work in the U.S. providing consulting services to structure, manage, and deploy capital for clean energy investments, including pricing community solar assets and negotiating with U.S.-based solar developers.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not show through supporting documentation how her proposed endeavor to provide clean energy investment consulting services stands to sufficiently extend beyond its prospective clients”

“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to her future work”

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted
• other · discounted

  “the record does not show through supporting documentation how her proposed endeavor to provide clean energy investment consulting services stands to sufficiently extend beyond its prospective clients”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · ignored

  “the Petitioner's experience, skills, expertise, and abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• 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

Notable

AAO noted the Director's decision did not explicitly address EB-2 threshold eligibility in the denial itself, but had done so in the RFE; AAO treated this as conceded/established. The professor opinion letter and articles were credited as showing substantial merit but not national importance.

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. 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