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, a production and manufacturing engineer, proposed to establish and operate a management consulting company providing product development, quality control, and manufacturing process enhancement consultancy to small- and medium-sized U.S. companies.
Field: production and manufacturing engineering / management consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO disagreed with the Director's finding that the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional, finding the record did not show five years of progressive experience after her bachelor's degree; AAO reserved opinion on whether she instead qualifies as an individual of exceptional ability, since the appeal was resolved on national importance grounds.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the business plan does not explain the methodology used to determine its estimated expenses, projected sales and income, or its staffing needs”
“the Petitioner's skills, knowledge, and reputation in the field are not self-evident of the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“these claims, even if true, relate to entrepreneurship, small businesses, and the business development field in general, not to the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
“the Petitioner did not explain how the creation of 29 jobs in five years has the potential to result in a substantial positive economic effect”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan does not explain the methodology used to determine its estimated expenses, projected sales and income, or its staffing needs”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's skills, knowledge, and reputation in the field are not self-evident of the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the Petitioner merely restates the same claims made in her response to the request for evidence (RFE) without addressing the Director's findings”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“it is unclear how the report supports the business plan's projections”
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
Notable
AAO found the Director erroneously concluded the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional (insufficient evidence of five years progressive experience), but declined to remand or resolve exceptional-ability eligibility, instead affirming denial solely on the first Dhanasar prong (national importance), reserving opinion on prongs two and three and on underlying EB-2 classification.
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(g)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(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