dismissedJUN182025_06B52032025-06-18 · appeal
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 industrial engineer, proposed to establish his own consulting company providing loss-prevention and supply-chain solutions to department stores, using AI-powered surveillance, RFID inventory tracking, and data analytics.
Field: industrial engineering / retail loss prevention and supply chain management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS and AAO agreed Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“he has not shown how his endeavor through his company will have a broader impact in the industry, region, or nation beyond the employees and individual clients he will serve”
“he did not provide sufficient explanation or evidentiary support for the bases of his figures”
“he did not establish the significance of this data or explain how the benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
“his opinion is largely conclusory and does not adequately explain how the Petitioner's work, in particular, would produce such nationally important impacts”
“the pertinent question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
“beyond this vague statement, he has not farther explained what these cutting-edge solutions will involve”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“he did not provide sufficient explanation or evidentiary support for the bases of his figures”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“his opinion is largely conclusory and does not adequately explain how the Petitioner's work, in particular, would produce such nationally important impacts”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“The articles and reports provide only general background information on the aforementioned areas and do not specifically relate to or discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - resume experience · 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
- 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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
1,358coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
AAO withdrew SCOPS' finding that the Petitioner made a 'material change' to his endeavor and held the endeavor had substantial merit, but still affirmed denial solely on national importance grounds, declining to reach prongs two and three.
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
- Flores v. Garland
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