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 electrical engineer, proposed to start a new engineering consulting company providing electrical engineering, electronics, and production process services to businesses and residential customers in the United States.
Field: electrical engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional; not contested on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we conclude that the Director correctly determined that the breadth of implications of the Petitioner's endeavor is limited to the Petitioner, his company, his prospective clients, and his four prospective employees”
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor without evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of a petitioner's work”
“While the Petitioner argues that his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance because it would improve societal welfare and increase the U.S. economy, he has not supported these claims with corroborating evidence.”
“The submitted documentation does not demonstrate a potential impact on the field of electrical engineering such that the Petitioner's specific endeavor would rise to the level of national importance.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“he has not supported these claims with corroborating evidence”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the support letters discuss the Petitioner's professional background and accomplishments”
AAO decision text - resume experience · ignored
- other · discounted
“The industry reports and articles in the record emphasize the general importance of electrical engineering”
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
Notable
Petitioner made procedural arguments (wrong standard applied, lack of notice, existence of a 'national initiative' criterion and an unspecified 'list' of requirements) which the AAO rejected as unsupported; AAO also clarified that geographic breadth and employment numbers are non-required indicators, not absolute criteria, under Dhanasar.
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. 103.2(b)(8)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
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