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 sought to establish a company providing consulting services and structured training/certification programs for the soybean processing industry, aiming to improve efficiency, sustainability, and resource utilization in the agricultural sector.
Field: soybean processing / agricultural industrial engineering consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS and AAO agreed the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional based on a foreign bachelor's degree plus five years of progressive experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“she did not provide sufficient explanation or evidentiary support for the bases of her figures”
“she provided little detail and documentation to sufficiently demonstrate that her consulting services would likely have a national impact on economically depressed areas in Illinois as claimed”
“merely working in an important field or profession is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“the author's opinion is largely conclusory and does not adequately explain how the Petitioner's work would produce such nationally important impacts”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“she did not provide sufficient explanation or evidentiary support for the bases of her figures”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the author's opinion is largely conclusory and does not adequately explain how the Petitioner's work would produce such nationally important impacts”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“much of the content of the expert opinion letter lacked relevance and probative value with respect to the national importance”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
- resume experience · credited
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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO cites Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) to underscore that NIW adjudication is discretionary, and repeatedly refers to the denying authority as 'Service Center Operations (SCOPS)' rather than a named service center.
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)
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of Caron Int'l
- Matter of D-R-
- 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