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 food innovation consultant with a background in chemical engineering and agrofood chain studies, proposed to run a U.S. consultancy helping small food businesses focus on consumers, reduce food waste, and introduce safer, healthier products.
Field: food innovation / food science consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Petitioner established she qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on a foreign equivalent master's degree in agriculture.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the company's federal income tax returns for 2020 and 2021 report no salary or wage payments, indicating that the business has no employees.”
“Her seventh-year projections of six employees and revenues of $425,000 do not indicate a substantial, economic impact on the United States or her region.”
“the record does not indicate by a preponderance of the evidence that the petitioner would be engaged in activities that would impact the field of [food innovation] more broadly.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“do not indicate a substantial, economic impact on the United States or her region”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor - alone - has significant potential”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“does not indicate by a preponderance of the evidence that the petitioner would be engaged in activities that would impact the field of [food innovation] more broadly.”
AAO decision text - 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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO agreed the endeavor had substantial merit but found national importance unmet solely on the specific plan's limited economic scale, expressly 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. 204.5(k)(2)
- INA 203(b)(2)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner's own financial records (tax returns showing no employees and modest revenue) contradicted business-plan projections, and expert letter addressed field-wide/general goals rather than the specific endeavor's actual scaled impact.
Support projected national-scale impact with consistent, verifiable financial/operational evidence tied specifically to the endeavor itself, not general field benefits or aspirational plans.
moderate
economic_job_creation · public_health · economic_growth_generic
mixed
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