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 intended to own and operate a company in the United States that would maintain and repair medical equipment.
Field: mechanical engineering / medical equipment maintenance and repair · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner claimed advanced degree professional status via bachelor's degree plus five years progressive experience, but employment verification letters described his role as 'Medical Equipment Technician' rather than mechanical engineer, contradicting his resume and appeal assertions.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner focused on his own expertise and the importance of the field of the endeavor rather than the endeavor itself”
“the business plan lacks specific data to adequately support the Petitioner's assertions about his endeavor's prospective impact in terms of job creation and generation of direct and tax revenue”
“he does not adequately describe the scope of his endeavor or offer evidence demonstrating the endeavor's broader impact at a level that is commensurate with national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the employment verification letters do not support these assertions as both letters state that the Petitioner's post-baccalaureate experience was as a medical equipment technician”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the business plan lacks specific data to adequately support the Petitioner's assertions about his endeavor's prospective impact”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- 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
Notable
AAO adopted and affirmed the Director's decision under Matter of Burbano rather than independently reanalyzing, citing multiple circuit precedents endorsing this practice; threshold EB-2 failure and prong 1 national importance failure were both treated as independently dispositive grounds.
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)
- Chen v. INS
- 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