dismissedJUL222024_05B52032024-07-22 · appeal · Texas 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 sought to work as a sustainability advisor, providing environmental sustainability and consulting services to U.S. businesses through his own newly formed consulting company.
Field: environmental sustainability consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; this was not contested on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the overall importance of the industry in which the individual will work or the value of protecting the environment”
“The advisory opinion does not demonstrate how the Petitioner's day-to-day management of his company's operations and performance of environmental consulting services for clients as contemplated by his proposed endeavor rise to a level of national importance.”
“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims.”
“the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and its clientele to impact his field”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the issue here is not the national importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“we focus on the 'the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake'”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- 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
- 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
AAO reserved the second and third Dhanasar prongs entirely, resolving the appeal solely on national importance; Director's threshold EB-2 finding was undisputed.
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.
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution