dismissedAUG092023_03B52032023-08-09 · 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 architect, proposed to work for U.S. companies designing houses, office buildings, stadiums, and furniture with a focus on sustainability, including project management and construction quality oversight.
Field: architecture · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Record establishes EB-2 eligibility as advanced degree professional via bachelor's degree plus five years progressive experience under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2).
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“Beyond general descriptions of the Petitioner's intention to work with clients to plan, design, and oversee sustainable projects, the record does not contain documentation that specifically identifies or details her endeavor”
“The record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would extend beyond providing services to her immediate clientele”
“she does not explain how the work of a single architect would alleviate a shortage at a nationally important level”
“the record does not contain probative evidence to support this statement and others in the record that claim the potential national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“These parts provide general descriptions of how the Petitioner will use her qualifications to undertake responsibilities and perform duties typically expected of architects”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
- resume experience · credited
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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
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
The Petitioner's appeal brief was largely identical to the RFE response cover letter and did not specifically identify errors in the Director's decision, which the AAO noted as a procedural deficiency under 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(1)(v).
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. 103.5
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 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