dismissedAPR212025_08B52032025-04-21 · 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, an urban planner, proposed to start a modular design consulting company aimed at providing cost-effective, sustainable housing and construction solutions, including projects addressing homelessness, healthcare facility sustainability, and disaster relief.
Field: urban planning / modular construction consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner presented an unfocused variety of potential proposed endeavors leaving uncertainty as to his assertions of national level impact”
“This material discrepancy leaves substantial question as to the actual nature of his proposed endeavor and its potential prospective national impact”
“the Petitioner did not properly substantiate how these rather limited projections would have a national level impact on a modular construction industry”
“there is little supporting documentation to support that such a level of financial support would likely be secured to lead to a potential national level impact”
“the record does not establish that the Petitioner's endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner did not properly substantiate how these rather limited projections would have a national level impact”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“there is little supporting documentation to support that such a level of financial support would likely be secured”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“a petitioner's expertise and record of success are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“This material discrepancy leaves substantial question as to the actual nature of his proposed endeavor”
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
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
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 Petitioner's proposed endeavors shifted across appeal filings (consulting company, non-profit homeless housing project, healthcare sustainability), and the AAO highlighted a signed full-time job offer as a company's 'Director of Development/Construction' that undermined the credibility of the claimed independent consulting endeavor.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 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