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, a mechanical engineer with railway and automotive production experience, sought to open a consulting, advising, and solutions company serving the automotive mechanics B2B market (factories, assemblers, rental agencies, parts companies, dealers, insurers) in the United States.
Field: mechanical engineering / automotive consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO agreed with Director that Petitioner established EB-2 eligibility as advanced degree professional via bachelor's equivalent plus five years progressive experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his business's clientele to impact vehicle factories and assemblers, car rental companies, auto parts companies, dealers, and insurers more broadly”
“The Petitioner has not shown that his company's prospective business activity, staffing levels, and resultant tax revenue are likely to produce substantial economic benefits”
“the Petitioner's business plan does not detail how the intended goals will be operationally realized”
“because the expert opinion letter lacks detailed analysis on how the endeavor's goals will be realized, or reach the scale of national importance, it is of minimal probative value”
“the Petitioner's abilities go to Dhanasar's second prong whether he is well-positioned to carry out the endeavor and not to the endeavor's national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner's business plan does not detail how the intended goals will be operationally realized”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the expert opinion letter lacks detailed analysis on how the endeavor's goals will be realized, or reach the scale of national importance”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
- resume experience · credited
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
- 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 credited substantial merit (which the Director had not reached) but found national importance lacking; case includes a procedural aside about a clerical-error abandonment that was reopened via motion before the appeal proceeded.
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