This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal, agreeing with SCOPS that the petitioner failed to establish the national importance prong of the Dhanasar framework. The petitioner's evidence addressed the importance of the EV and solar industries broadly but did not show how his specific endeavor would have prospective impact beyond his own company and clients.
The petitioner, a franchise owner with over 20 years of operations management experience, sought a national interest waiver based on his proposed endeavor to develop and install EV charging stations and solar energy solutions in the southeastern United States. SCOPS denied the petition and the AAO affirmed, finding the petitioner failed to establish the national importance prong of the Dhanasar framework. Although the AAO accepted that the broader EV and solar fields have substantial merit and national priority, the petitioner's evidence—consisting of general industry articles, a business plan with unsubstantiated projections, and conclusory support letters—did not demonstrate how his specific endeavor would extend beyond his own company and customers to impact the field or economy more broadly. The AAO also flagged unresolved concerns about the petitioner's franchise agreement, including intellectual property and non-competition clauses that could affect his ability to pursue the claimed innovations.
What worked: The petitioner successfully established EB-2 advanced degree professional eligibility. SCOPS and the AAO both found substantial merit in the proposed EV charging and solar energy endeavor, acknowledging the importance of the broader field.
What failed: The petitioner could not show that his specific business activities—rather than the EV/solar industry generally—would have nationally important impact. Financial projections lacked sufficient supporting basis and did not demonstrate substantial positive economic effects at the national level. Support letters were conclusory and failed to explain how benefits would reach beyond the petitioner's direct clients. Claims of an innovative open-protocol platform were vague and unsupported by technical detail.
Takeaway: NIW petitioners in the clean energy or infrastructure sector must go beyond citing national policy priorities and demonstrate concretely how their specific work—not just the field—will produce broader, measurable impact on the economy, industry, or nation. Unsupported business projections and conclusory expert letters are insufficient; petitioners should provide detailed evidence of scalability, field-level innovation, and economic significance.
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 petitioner successfully established EB-2 advanced degree professional eligibility
- SCOPS and the AAO both found substantial merit in the proposed EV charging and solar energy endeavor, acknowledging the importance of the broader field.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The petitioner could not show that his specific business activities—rather than the EV/solar industry generally—would have nationally important impact
- Financial projections lacked sufficient supporting basis and did not demonstrate substantial positive economic effects at the national level
- Support letters were conclusory and failed to explain how benefits would reach beyond the petitioner's direct clients
- Claims of an innovative open-protocol platform were vague and unsupported by technical detail.
Completed
I-140 filed
General and operations manager / franchise owner operating a solar panel installation and EV charging solutions company
Completed
SCOPS — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2026-05-06
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal, agreeing with SCOPS that the petitioner failed to establish the national importance prong of the Dhanasar framework. The petitioner's evidence addressed the importance of the EV and solar industries broadly but did not show how his specific endeavor would have prospective impact beyond his own company and clients.
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.