The Petitioner, a construction estimator and supervisor, proposed to work as a self-employed architectural and engineering manager/contractor consultant, setting up his own architectural, engineering, and construction firm focused on impact projects like schools, housing, and infrastructure.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“Much of the Petitioner's evidence relates to the importance of the industries and professions named above, rather than his specific proposed endeavor.”

“the record contains insufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to the Petitioner's specific work.”

“The Petitioner's endeavor may impact the companies he works for and their clientele, but the record does not establish that his proposed endeavor stands to have a broader impact.”

“He has not explained what the job title variations represent or whether they signify differences in the proposed endeavor work.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• other · discounted

  “the articles, reports, and statistics do not support a finding of the proposed endeavor's national importance”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “this evidence demonstrates the magnitude and importance of his work for the companies that employed him... it does not demonstrate the national importance”

  AAO decision text
• degree · discounted

  “the record does not reflect he has completed this education”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
• Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

AAO noted the Petitioner used inconsistent job titles across filings (construction estimator/supervisor, architectural and engineering manager, contractor consultant) without explaining whether these represented the same endeavor, and questioned his qualifications for engineering/architecture roles given his degree was in building and quantity surveying, though this qualification issue was framed as more appropriate to prong two even while discussed under prong one.

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
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
• The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
• The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
• The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
• The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod