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 grow his own New Jersey-based electrical engineering consulting company offering solar energy installation and electrical maintenance services, projecting job creation and revenue over five years.
Field: electrical engineering / solar energy consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the proposed endeavor appears to benefit the Petitioner, his company, and his clients, rather than having the type of broader implications contemplated by Dhanasar.”
“These unresolved inconsistences cast doubt on the Petitioner's business plan in general and on the number of workers he plans to employ and the wages he intends to pay more specifically.”
“it does not establish how creating 22 or even 28 direct jobs for foll-time and contract workers and 117 indirect jobs may have national importance”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“These unresolved inconsistences cast doubt on the Petitioner's business plan in general and on the number of workers he plans to employ”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's references on appeal to his prior academic history and professional experience is inapposite to whether the prospective, proposed endeavor may have national importance”
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
The Director found substantial merit satisfied and did not address threshold EB-2 eligibility, but the AAO dismissed solely on national importance, reserving opinion on threshold eligibility and prongs 2 and 3; AAO extensively critiqued internal inconsistencies in the business plan's job/wage figures (22 vs. 28 workers) as undermining reliability of the whole record.
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of Ho
- 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