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 experienced general and operations manager in the paint manufacturing industry, proposed to start his own consulting and training company providing advanced consulting and training services to U.S. paint manufacturing and packaging businesses.
Field: paint manufacturing / general and operations management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found threshold EB-2 exceptional ability not met, but AAO declined to reach this issue since the appeal was dismissed on prong 1 national importance grounds.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The evidence submitted by the Petitioner does not establish his proposed endeavor would operate on such a large scale as to have a national impact on the paint and packaging manufacturing industries.”
“he did not establish his specific proposed endeavor will have substantial national implications or have a broader impact beyond the individuals directly served by his company”
“the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these projections”
“shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process”
“While we acknowledge the importance of industrial manufacturing, the Petitioner did not establish his proposed endeavor would have broader implications to the overall field”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these projections”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the inquiry in the first prong of the Dhanasar framework focuses on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake"”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the Petitioner has provided evidence of his professional experience, including his resume and letters of reference”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
Notable
AAO expressly declined to address the threshold EB-2 exceptional ability issue and prongs 2 and 3 of Dhanasar, resting dismissal solely on prong 1 national importance failure, citing Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for declining to reach unnecessary issues.
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)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
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