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 found his own consulting company providing nondestructive testing services—pipeline integrity assessment, weld inspection, corrosion mapping, and related analysis—to the oil and gas sector.
Field: nondestructive testing (NDT) and chemical engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS found, and AAO did not disturb, that the petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional based on a bachelor's degree equivalency plus five years of post-baccalaureate specialty experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not shown, and the record does not delineate, how the impact resulting from his individual company's NDT consulting services...would sufficiently extend beyond his company and its clients”
“working in an important field alone is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“the plan does not explain how these forecasts were calculated, or adequately clarify how these projections will be realized”
“he has not explained how this technology is different from what is already available in the market”
“we find the letters submitted provide little probative value in weighing the endeavor's national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the plan does not explain how these forecasts were calculated, or adequately clarify how these projections will be realized”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“we find the letters submitted provide little probative value in weighing the endeavor's national importance”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the Petitioner's articles, provide only general background information on the field and do not specifically relate to...the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“this document also focuses on the Petitioner's past accomplishments and expertise and does not address the 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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
The AAO expressly withdrew SCOPS' finding on substantial merit, agreeing with the petitioner that his endeavor met that element, but affirmed denial solely on national importance, illustrating a partial reversal within prong 1 rather than a wholesale agreement with the service center.
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. 103.5
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(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