dismissedAUG152024_03B52032024-08-15 · 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 his own company offering construction planning, engineering, supply assessment, logistics, and building assembly outsourcing services, headquartered in Florida, claiming it would create jobs and generate tax revenue.
Field: construction services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner does not provide sufficient detail of the basis of these projections, or adequately explain how these staffing targes and revenue forecasts will be realized”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his undertaking will have implications beyond his employees and customers”
“the shortage of engineering professionals does not render the Petitioner's proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“the Petitioner's claimed extensive experiences are material to Dhanasar's second prong...but they are immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner does not provide sufficient detail of the basis of these projections, or adequately explain how these staffing targes and revenue forecasts will be realized”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“they are immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · ignored
- other · discounted
“the record does not include adequate corroborating evidence”
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
- 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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
1,358coded 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 AAO devoted extensive analysis to questioning whether the Petitioner's company, wholly owned by a non-citizen, would even be eligible for the SBA HUBZone program he cited as evidence of national importance, given HUBZone ownership requirements.
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
- INA 203(b)(2)
- 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