dismissedMAR272025_01B52032025-03-27 · 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, an industrial engineer, proposed to start a consulting company offering customized manufacturing and packaging solutions and quality-control/project-management services to paint industry clients, aiming to improve their operational efficiency.
Field: industrial engineering / quality control and project management consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; the AAO did not disturb this finding.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, sector, or profession in which the individual will work”
“he did not establish his specific proposed endeavor will have substantial national implications or have a broader impact beyond the individuals directly served”
“shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process”
“the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these projections”
“the Petitioner did not establish his proposed endeavor would have substantial positive economic effects”
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 - recommendation letter · discounted
“relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”
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
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
- 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
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 expressly reserved the remaining Dhanasar prongs as unnecessary given the dispositive national-importance failure, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C-.
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
- Matter of L-A-C-
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