dismissedSEP082025_02B52032025-09-08 · appeal

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 automotive quality engineer, proposed to work as an independent advisor before opening his own startup automotive engineering consulting firm serving medium-to-large U.S. automakers, with planned branch offices in Indiana and Tennessee.

Field: automotive quality engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS found, and AAO did not dispute, that the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not establish that the benefits of the Petitioner's automotive engineering consulting services company would extend beyond his company's clients, customers, and business partners”

“The business plan contains contradictory and unsubstantiated information that undermines both its reliability and sufficiency, and the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence.”

“the copies of publications in the record providing generalized information regarding the automotive industry do not reference the Petitioner, the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake”

“the record does not establish the significance of employing seven workers with the position titles noted above in any or all of those locations”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“contains contradictory and unsubstantiated information that undermines both its reliability and sufficiency”
AAO decision text
other · ignored
“do not reference the Petitioner, the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake, and how the specific endeavor may have the type of broader implications”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“do not elaborate on how the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have national or even global implications”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“do not establish how the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have national or even global implications”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the opinion based on that unreliable and insufficient business plan's description of the proposed endeavor is questionable and, thus, also bears minimal probative value”
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

1,312coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →

Notable

AAO devoted extensive analysis to internal arithmetic inconsistencies in the business plan's revenue, wage, and rent projections, using Matter of Ho to find that these inconsistencies undermined the reliability of the entire record; the AAO expressly reserved judgment on prongs two and three after finding prong one dispositive.

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.

Flores v. Garland
Matter of Ho
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer