This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal because, while the petitioner established EB-2 eligibility as an advanced degree professional, he failed to demonstrate that his proposed consulting business would have national importance under the Dhanasar framework.
The petitioner, a Brazilian mechanical engineer with over ten years of experience, sought an EB-2 National Interest Waiver to open a business process consulting firm in the United States. The AAO reversed the Director's finding that he lacked EB-2 eligibility, accepting a supplemental employer letter that documented his progressive experience. However, the AAO agreed with the Director that the petitioner's business plan—projecting modest revenues and as few as eight employees—did not demonstrate that his specific venture would produce economic benefits on a national scale. General arguments that improving business profitability contributes to GDP were insufficient without showing the particular consulting business would achieve that impact. The appeal was therefore dismissed for failure to satisfy the national importance prong of the Dhanasar framework.
What worked: The supplemental employer letter detailing the petitioner's progression from routine to advanced duties was persuasive and successfully established EB-2 eligibility as an advanced degree professional. The general concept of helping U.S. businesses improve performance was accepted as having substantial merit.
What failed: The business plan's small projected size (up to 8 employees, under $604K revenue) was too modest to demonstrate national-scale economic impact. The plan to hire from economically depressed areas lacked sufficient scale to show meaningful community impact. Broad economic arguments about GDP and job creation were rejected because they did not show this specific company would achieve those results.
Takeaway: For NIW petitioners in business consulting, it is not enough to argue that improving client businesses generally benefits the economy—petitioners must provide concrete evidence showing their specific venture will have national-scale impact, such as through industry-wide innovation, documented large-scale partnerships, or projections tied to measurable national economic metrics.
Cases like this are frequently used by attorneys when responding to RFEs or building initial petitions. The evidence patterns that worked (or failed) here directly reflect what USCIS officers look for when evaluating EB-2-NIW criteria.
● Evidence that moved the needle
- The supplemental employer letter detailing the petitioner's progression from routine to advanced duties was persuasive and successfully established EB-2 eligibility as an advanced degree professional
- The general concept of helping U.S
- businesses improve performance was accepted as having substantial merit.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The business plan's small projected size (up to 8 employees, under $604K revenue) was too modest to demonstrate national-scale economic impact
- The plan to hire from economically depressed areas lacked sufficient scale to show meaningful community impact
- Broad economic arguments about GDP and job creation were rejected because they did not show this specific company would achieve those results.
Supplemental letter from former Brazilian employer documenting progression from basic duties (modeling, integration, process controls) to more advanced responsibilities (efficiency analyses, change management projects, employee training support), establishing over five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience.
Business plan showing potential to help U.S. businesses grow and create jobs, accepted as sufficient to establish substantial merit.
Business plan projections (revenues of $182,500–$603,647 and 2–8 employees over five years) deemed insufficient to demonstrate national-scale economic impact.
Plan to hire workers from economically depressed census tracts rejected as too small in scale to significantly affect those communities.
General argument that improving U.S. business profitability raises GDP and creates jobs rejected because petitioner did not show his specific consulting company would achieve results on a national scale.
Director erroneously found the petitioner did not qualify for EB-2 as an advanced degree professional; the AAO reversed this after finding the supplemental employer letter demonstrated progressive experience.
Completed
I-140 filed
Business process engineer seeking to open a consulting company to help U.S. corporate clients reengineer their business processes
Completed
Texas Service Center Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2023-12-12
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because, while the petitioner established EB-2 eligibility as an advanced degree professional, he failed to demonstrate that his proposed consulting business would have national importance under the Dhanasar framework.
If you're appealing a similar decision, I-290B must be filed within 30 days of personal service of the denial, or 33 days if mailed.
Find this useful? A coffee helps keep Case Reviewer free and ad-free.
Buy me a coffee