dismissedFEB122026_04B52032026-02-12 · appeal · SCOPS Service Center

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 proposed to establish a U.S. consulting firm to improve production and efficiency in the domestic electric-vehicle industry, delivering comprehensive industrial optimization plans to EV manufacturers and assembling a multidisciplinary team of engineering specialists.

Field: electric vehicle manufacturing / industrial and systems engineering consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS found and AAO confirmed the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional via a bachelor's degree plus at least five years of progressive experience under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2).

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his venture would have broader implications beyond his consultancy and its clients.”

“The record does not explain how his consulting business would serve enough U.S. EV manufacturers to impact the sector.”

“the Petitioner has not detailed or estimated how many jobs or how much revenue his proposed consulting business would generate.”

“work in a nationally important field does not alone demonstrate an endeavor's national importance.”

“the expert letters that the Petitioner submitted primarily discuss his past accomplishments in his field. They do not detail his proposed endeavor.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“The letter does not describe the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in detail nor specifically explain how it would have national implications.”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“it does not sufficiently show how they extend beyond the ... the persons or entities utilizing them.”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“work in a nationally important field does not alone demonstrate an endeavor's national importance.”
AAO decision text
resume experience · credited

Where this case turned

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
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

2,501coded 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

The AAO expressly conceded that SCOPS misapplied Prong 2 factors (record of success, interest of potential customers/investors) within the Prong 1 national-importance analysis, but found the error harmless because the Petitioner independently failed to establish national importance. The AAO also acknowledged SCOPS used the outdated 'national in scope' terminology from the pre-Dhanasar NYSDOT framework but found no prejudice because the substantive standard applied was correct. The Petitioner made unusually pointed accusations of 'abuse of discretion,' 'deliberate disregard,' and 'careless examination' against the adjudicating officer, which the AAO addressed and rejected on the merits.

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show his consulting endeavor's benefits would extend beyond his own business and its individual clients to the broader EV field, region, or national economy.

Transferable lesson

Quantify and document how a private consulting/business endeavor's impact will reach beyond individual clients—via scale, adoption, jobs, or revenue—to the field or economy at large.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

economic_growth_generic · field_advancement · us_competitiveness

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer