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 industrial engineer, initially proposed to continue working for multi-national companies on cross-border automotive projects between the U.S. and Brazil, then later, after the RFE, proposed instead to found his own management consulting firm.
Field: industrial/automotive engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“I will bring optimal results to any company that chooses to hire me in the future.”
“it indicates that the consulting company's operations would benefit the Petitioner, as its owner, and its clients”
“the business plan presents a new set of facts that did not exist at the time of filing”
“the record does not contain evidence to reflect that the area where it will operate is economically depressed”
“The Petitioner's focus on appeal on his prior career experience and industry reports ... is misplaced.”
“A petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the petition.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan presents a new set of facts that did not exist at the time of filing”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“relevant to the second Dhanasar prong, whether the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, but not to the first”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“do not address the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake and how it may have national importance”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
Where this case turned
- NEW new facts after filing · p1
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- 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
The Petitioner materially changed the proposed endeavor after filing, shifting from working as an industrial engineer for an unspecified employer to founding his own consulting company incorporated after the I-140 filing date; the AAO held this new business plan could not establish eligibility because it constituted a new set of facts arising after filing, citing Matter of Katigbak.
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)(1)
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
- The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
- The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
- The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
- The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod