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, planned to found a business consulting firm providing occupational health, safety, environmental management, and organizational consulting services to small and medium-sized U.S. businesses.
Field: industrial engineering / occupational risk management and business consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO did not disturb, that Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the overall importance of the industry in which the individual will work or the value of small businesses in general”
“This job vacancies projection, however, is not supported by details showing its basis or an adequate explanation of how it will be achieved.”
“the Petitioner has not shown that her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her company and its future clientele to impact her industry”
“The Petitioner has not presented evidence indicating that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from her undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“do not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that her specific proposed work offers broader implications”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“This job vacancies projection, however, is not supported by details showing its basis or an adequate explanation of how it will be achieved.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the relevant question is not the overall importance of the industry in which the individual will work or the value of small businesses in general”
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
Notable
AAO expressly declines to reach the third Dhanasar prong, treating the first-prong national-importance failure as an independent and alternate dispositive basis; discusses letters and client interest as relevant to prong two but does not substantively analyze prong two.
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.
- 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