dismissedAPR032025_01B52032025-04-03 · 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 establish and manage a consulting business in South Carolina offering specialized engineering solutions to improve manufacturing efficiency for automotive/electric vehicle industry clients, applying lean manufacturing methods.
Field: manufacturing/automotive engineering consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated D specific undertaking stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and clients to impact the automotive industry more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”
“shortages in a field are not alone sufficient to demonstrate an endeavor's national importance.”
“the record does not contain sufficient supporting evidence to corroborate the projected financial figures forD or establish the significance of the data”
“merely working in a STEM field and with critical and emerging technologies is alone insufficient to establish the national importance of a proposed endeavor.”
“the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects beyond his company and its clients”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the record does not contain sufficient supporting evidence to corroborate the projected financial figures”
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
- 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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
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
The Director found substantial merit and well-positioned prongs satisfied, but AAO dismissed solely on national importance (prong 1), declining to reach prongs 2 and 3 despite Director's favorable findings on prong 2.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers