dismissedMAY072026_03B52032026-05-07 · appeal

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 run a consultancy business providing production process optimization, project management, safety, and training services to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), primarily in Florida.

Field: production engineering / manufacturing consultancy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

AAO withdrew SCOPS' denial on advanced degree grounds; found petitioner qualified based on bachelor's degrees plus progressive post-baccalaureate experience shown through employer letters.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not show through supporting documentation how his specific services stand to sufficiently extend beyond his prospective clients”

“the plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for the revenue and staffing projections, nor does it adequately explain how the revenue and staffing projections will be realized”

“he has not provided sufficient explanation of the prospective national impact directly attributable to his proposed work”

“The Petitioner provided very general notions of national impacts but did not provide specific information on how his business that services clients in a certain area can actually have a national impact.”

“Without more detailed, credible evidence of the types ofjobs that would be created and where the jobs would be located, the record does not establish...substantial positive economic effects”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“the plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for the revenue and staffing projections, nor does it adequately explain how the revenue and staffing projections will be realized”
AAO decision text
resume experience · credited
degree · credited
other · discounted
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact to the field have little probative value.”
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
Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

1,312coded 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 withdrew SCOPS' threshold EB-2 denial (finding petitioner qualified as advanced degree professional) but dismissed on Prong 1 national importance alone, reserving Prongs 2 and 3 as unnecessary under Bagamasbad. Notable use of RIMS II economic modeling evidence in a business plan, which AAO found too vague as to job type/location to establish national importance.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
Flores v. Garland
USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Though AAO granted him EB-2 classification, the generic SME consultancy showed only unsupported projections and an unexplained RIMS II indirect-jobs figure, with no evidence its services extend beyond clients; prong-1 national importance failed.

Transferable lesson

Winning the classification threshold is not the waiver; a RIMS II jobs model needs job types, locations, and a credible basis, and scalability must be explained, not asserted.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · us_competitiveness

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer