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 launch a civil engineering and project management consulting company serving commercial construction clients, with plans to become a licensed general contractor.
Field: civil engineering / commercial construction · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO noted the petitioner's foreign degree, based on a transcript showing six terms of study completed in three years, may not equate to a four-year U.S. baccalaureate degree, but declined to reach the issue since she was not notified of it and was otherwise ineligible on prong 1.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not established that her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her clientele to impact her field at a level commensurate with national importance.”
“The record also does not indicate the Petitioner would operate in an economically depressed area or that her projected employment and tax payments would otherwise provide a substantial positive economic effect of national importance.”
“The Petitioner's business plan did not specify how these employment projections were calculated.”
“the letters did not address her proposed endeavor or any broader implications of her work in her field.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters did not address her proposed endeavor or any broader implications of her work in her field”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“did not specify how these employment projections were calculated”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“they are not indicative of her eligibility at the time of filing”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“she has not established that she holds a foreign equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate degree”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“it does not mention the Petitioner or otherwise indicate any broader implications the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would have within her field”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- certification membership · discounted
“does not specify how her licensure as a general contractor would extend beyond her work with future clients”
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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO disregarded post-filing evidence (company formation, new business contracts, bank statements) under Matter of Katigbak's eligibility-at-time-of-filing rule; also reserved a foreign-degree-equivalency threshold issue because petitioner lacked notice and was otherwise ineligible on prong 1; cited Flores v. Garland for the discretionary nature of NIW adjudication.
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
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