dismissedAUG022024_01B52032024-08-02 · 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, a patent attorney, proposed to be self-employed offering affordable patent-related legal services to innovators and small businesses, including through the USPTO Patent Pro Bono Initiative.
Field: patent law · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director and AAO agreed Petitioner qualified for EB-2 as an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“these publications and articles attest to the importance of patents and the protection of intellectual property, but they do not address the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
“these letters attest to the benefits the Petitioner's work would bring to the authors' companies, but do not indicate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would impact his field more broadly”
“the Petitioner does not indicate that he would employ workers in the United States as he states he would be self-employed”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his clients to impact his field more broadly”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- other · discounted
“they do not address the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“do not indicate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would impact his field more broadly”
AAO decision text - patents · discounted
“relevant to the second Dhanasar prong”
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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
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 notes the patents themselves are relevant to prong 2 (well-positioned) rather than prong 1, since the endeavor is patent-attorney services for clients, not the Petitioner's own inventions.
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-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution