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, an agro-industrial engineer, proposed to provide specialized consulting services to small and medium-sized enterprises in the U.S. agricultural and manufacturing sectors, focusing on quality management, operational efficiency, and workforce training.
Field: agro-industrial engineering / agricultural and manufacturing consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO agreed with SCOPS that the Petitioner's foreign degree plus over five years of progressive experience established EB-2 eligibility as an advanced-degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not demonstrate how his services will address these challenges in the agriculture and manufacturing industries more broadly to have national or global implications as Dhanasar requires”
“The Petitioner's business plan alone does not establish broader implications within the fields he proposes to impact”
“the economic impact of an industry does not establish the economic impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
“working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“the record does not establish that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“The Petitioner's business plan alone does not establish broader implications within the fields he proposes to impact.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the record does not establish that the Petitioner will be working in these areas and therefore we cannot determine that his work will have substantial positive economic effects”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“The industry reports and articles provide good background information on the industries he proposes to serve...however, without sufficient documentary evidence of the specific proposed endeavor's substantial positive economic effects”
AAO decision text - resume experience · credited
- degree · credited
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
- 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 expressly acknowledged that SCOPS 'provided a minimal analysis of the evidence' yet still affirmed the denial, agreeing only on the national importance sub-element while SCOPS itself had conceded substantial merit and prong 2 (well-positioned). AAO reserved prongs 2 and 3 entirely, resolving the case solely on 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)
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
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