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 establish a company in the United States providing steel manufacturing services, including production of steel pipes, welding assemblies, welding inspection, non-destructive testing, and machining for industries such as oil and gas, aerospace, automotive, military, construction, and mining.
Field: steel manufacturing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner did not establish he holds an advanced degree; his lato sensu course was found to be a professional certificate, not a graduate degree, and the record was unclear on whether his undergraduate program constituted a full four-or-five-year bachelor's equivalent. The AAO reserved the exceptional-ability argument since national importance was not established.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“However, the record does not detail the improvement in production processes or new steel grade development intended by”
“in assessing national importance, we focus not on the specific field at issue bur rather on the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake.”
“However, the Petitioner did not provide supporting evidence corroborating these projected employment and financial figures”
“Overall, the Petitioner has not demonstrated through supporting documentation how his endeavor sufficiently extends beyond his prospective clients and employees”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“lato sensus are professional development and specialization programs that lead toward professional certificates, not graduate degrees”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner did not provide supporting evidence corroborating these projected employment and financial figures”
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
- 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
Notable
AAO reserved the exceptional-ability EB-2 classification argument entirely, citing the doctrine against purely advisory findings, since the national importance failure was dispositive. The decision engages in extensive foreign credential equivalency analysis using EDGE database sources.
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)
- Flores v. Garland
- 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