dismissedJUN272023_03B52032023-06-27 · appeal · Texas Service Center
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 former professor and researcher in Venezuela, proposed to establish and direct a new industrial engineering consulting business in the United States serving various industry sectors.
Field: industrial engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director and AAO agreed Petitioner established EB-2 advanced degree eligibility based on foreign PhD/master's equivalency.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Director found that the Petitioner did not establish that her work would "have a broader impact on the field, rising to the level of having national importance."”
“the Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence, aside from claims in her statements, that her business's activities stand to provide substantial economic and societal benefits to the United States”
“without sufficient documentary evidence that her proposed job duties as the director for her business would impact the industrial engineering industry more broadly rather than benefiting her proposed clients”
“The letters do not demonstrate that the Petitioner's work will have national or global implications in the field of industrial engineering.”
“The opinion does not focus on the Petitioner's specific endeavor and it having a potential prospective impact on the U.S. economy or societal welfare”
“merely working in the industrial engineering field or starting an industrial engineering consulting business is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“the Petitioner has not shown how her being the director of her new industrial engineering consulting business will advance technologies and research for the field of industrial engineering”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“it does not document the potential prospective impact, including the asserted economic and societal benefits to the United States”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“these documents relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“these documents relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the opinion focuses on the Petitioner's experience and knowledge”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“merely working in the industrial engineering field or starting an industrial engineering consulting business is insufficient”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- 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
- Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
2,501coded 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 cites its own Policy Manual language noting STEM endeavors often have sufficiently broad implications, yet finds this particular consulting endeavor insufficiently tied to broader field impact; expert opinion letter from a 'professional profile evaluator' discounted as focusing on experience rather than the endeavor's prospective impact.
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)
- Matter of D-R-
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(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