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 electrical engineer with sales and management experience, proposed to serve as general manager and head engineering consultant for a company he founded providing electrical engineering consulting and technical sales services, facilitating business between the U.S. and South American companies.
Field: electrical engineering / engineering consulting and sales · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO found the Petitioner's Ecuadorian bachelor's and master's degrees, evaluated as U.S. equivalents, established eligibility as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; Director had not made this determination.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record was insufficient to show the proposed endeavor's national importance”
“the business plan provides no basis for these hiring projections, providing statistics concerning broad regional and industry trends”
“the letter largely repeats information found in the Petitioner's resume and business plan, and refers to data about the field of engineering and the engineering services industry in general”
“he has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor is of national importance, and he therefore does not meet the first prong”
“STEM activities which do not impact a field more broadly are not of national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“letter largely repeats information found in the Petitioner's resume and business plan, and refers to data about the field of engineering and the engineering services industry in general”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the business plan provides no basis for these hiring projections, providing statistics concerning broad regional and industry trends as opposed to specific information”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
- resume experience · discounted
“letter largely repeats information found in the Petitioner's resume and business plan”
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
- Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
Petitioner unsuccessfully argued procedural prejudice from receiving a NOID instead of an RFE; AAO rejected this, noting NIW is discretionary and that Petitioner had ample time to respond despite claiming otherwise. AAO also found Petitioner eligible for EB-2 classification (an issue Director had not addressed) before separately dismissing on national importance 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)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)
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