dismissedAPR082024_01B52032024-04-08 · 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 planned to serve as Senior Technical Manager of Engineering and Processes at his newly created consulting company providing engineering solutions and consulting services to mining companies operating in the U.S. and aiding their expansion into Latin American mining markets.
Field: mining industry engineering consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The record does not reconcile why the business plan omitted New Mexico as a location for target clients.”
“the record does not establish how the company's consulting activities will extend beyond benefitting the Petitioner and his company, and the company's clients and customers receiving its services”
“the record does not establish how those four direct and 16 indirect jobs in unspecified locations demonstrate "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area,"”
“the letters that opine, without substantiation, that the proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers cast substantial doubt on the credibility of the authors”
“the record does not establish how the proposed endeavor may be responsible for those technologies, apparently developed by other engineers not among the workforce of four employees”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“does not establish how the proposed endeavor may have national importance”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“opine, without substantiation, that the proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the contracts do not establish how the proposed endeavor may have national importance”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“his prior academic and work history is immaterial to determining whether the specific, prospective, proposed endeavor may have national importance”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- 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 reserves opinion on prongs 2 and 3, resolving the case entirely on prong 1 national importance despite Director having found prong 2 satisfied; AAO discounts opinion letters as damaging their authors' credibility for making unsubstantiated economic claims, citing Matter of Ho.
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 Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
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