The petitioner, a Brazilian-trained occupational safety engineer, proposed to establish an occupational health and workplace safety services business in the U.S., serving as managing partner and security engineer.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The evidence does not suggest that the Petitioner's business would impact the occupational health and workplace safety field more broadly.”

“However, the record does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized.”

“Instead of focusing on the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor having a prospective impact in the occupational health and safety field, the opinion focuses on the importance of the industry”

“The Petitioner does not demonstrate that his proposed endeavor extends beyond his business and his future clients to impact the field or any other industries or the U.S. economy more broadly”

“The industry reports and articles submitted do not discuss any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation specifically attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• degree · discounted

  “does not qualify under the regulations as demonstrating the foreign equivalent of a single U.S. bachelor's degree”

  AAO decision text
• business plan · discounted

  “the record does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility.”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”

  AAO decision text
• media · discounted

  “do not discuss any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation specifically attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”

  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
• Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
• 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 independently addressed the threshold EB-2 advanced-degree issue, which the Director had not reached, finding the academic credential evaluation improperly combined a three-year engineering title with specialization certificates to simulate a bachelor's equivalent. Despite this alternative basis, the appeal was dismissed principally on Dhanasar prong one, with prongs two and three expressly reserved.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
• Matter of Caron Int'l
• Matter of D-R-
• Matter of E-M-
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Poursina v. USCIS

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