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 supply chain specialist, proposed to develop her own consulting venture in the U.S. offering supply chain consultancy services to public and private clients, including cargo consolidation and management and training of related professionals.
Field: supply chain management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO found Petitioner established foreign equivalent bachelor's degree plus five years progressive post-baccalaureate experience, satisfying advanced degree professional classification despite Director's initial denial on this ground.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner did not directly state what her future work would entail or provide corroborating evidence of her specific endeavor.”
“The Petitioner generally discussed the national importance of the industry and profession overall rather than demonstrating the national importance of continuing to serve her role in the supply chain industry.”
“Yet the Petitioner's professional plan does not include projections for generation of revenue or staff hiring to demonstrate that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from her business would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
“we find that the Petitioner has not established her proposed endeavor in this case will sufficiently extend beyond her clientele to affect the regional or national economy more broadly”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · credited
- degree · credited
- recommendation letter · discounted
“merely reiterates the Petitioner's work experience and summarizes the contents of recommendation letters already on record”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the record does not sufficiently detail the basis for its budget projections and timeline for business milestones”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- 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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO reversed the Director's threshold denial (finding the advanced-degree requirement was met) but still dismissed on prong 1; also distinguished a non-precedent decision (Matter of E-C-H) the Petitioner cited, noting non-precedent decisions do not bind USCIS and are factually distinguishable.
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. 103.3(c)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of R-A-M-
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