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 and operate his own company in South Carolina providing electrical engineering consulting services specializing in automation and robotics, particularly for the automotive industry.
Field: electrical engineering (consulting, automation and robotics for automotive industry) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on bachelor's equivalent plus five years progressive experience; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work”
“the record does not establish the proposed endeavor's national importance”
“these claims are not supported by the evidence in the record”
“the evidence does not demonstrate that the potential prospective impact of this endeavor includes improving the entire U.S. economy or the general quality of life in the United States”
“the Petitioner has not established that the benefits of his proposed endeavor will extend beyond his own clients or employees to impact the electrical engineering, automotive, or robotics fields more broadly”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“does not address the deficiencies that the Director found as to establishing the proposed endeavor's national importance”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“evidence of the Petitioner's skills, knowledge, and record of success generally relates to the second prong”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner's RFE response brief is essentially resubmitted on appeal”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
Notable
AAO expressly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the principle that agencies need not make advisory findings on unnecessary issues once the case is resolved on prong 1.
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
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