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 mining technician, proposed to provide consulting services to U.S. mining companies to improve mineral extraction operations, benefiting the environment and client companies' finances.
Field: mining/mineral extraction consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Petitioner contested being classified as advanced degree professional rather than exceptional ability, but AAO affirmed advanced degree classification (bachelor's equivalent plus 5+ years experience) as sufficient, since only one EB-2 classification need be met.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his proposed endeavor would extend beyond his company and customers to impact his field more broadly”
“his professional plan does not detail specifically what his proposed endeavor's impact would be on this industry”
“There are no projections indicating how much of this billion-dollar industry the Petitioner will impact or how many employees, if any, he will employ”
“the record did not detail how his endeavor, mining technician consulting, would specifically play a part in furthering a national initiative”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“his professional plan does not detail specifically what his proposed endeavor's impact would be on this industry”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO noted the Director's own third-prong language calling the endeavor 'an immense advantage to the U.S. economy' with 'urgency' was 'out of place' given the first-prong finding, but explained this was not contradictory since it was part of a balancing test; AAO nonetheless found the Director's positive statements 'not be reflected by the evidence presented.' Petitioner unsuccessfully argued the Director erred by evaluating him under the advanced degree category instead of exceptional ability.
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
- Chen v. INS
- 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