dismissedAPR222024_01B52032024-04-22 · 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 operate her family's aircraft parts manufacturing company in the United States, supplying spare parts to the U.S. military and commercial aviation industry.
Field: aviation/aircraft parts manufacturing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO agreed with Director that Petitioner qualifies as advanced degree professional based on her MBA in aviation.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The record does not contain any detailed information on the national or global implications of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
“the evidence in the record such as her national importance statement and her project proposal, do not detail the kind of jobs or number of jobs that will be created”
“we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
“These statements do not estimate how many jobs will be created by the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or when they will be created.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“it does so in vague terms”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“does not detail the kind of jobs or number of jobs that will be created”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
2,589coded 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 cites a footnote to Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) affirming that NIW grants are discretionary in nature, joining other circuits on this point.
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 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