dismissedAUG222022_03B52032022-08-22 · 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, a civil engineer, proposed to open a U.S. branch of his family's Brazilian consulting company, offering diagnostic software and consulting services for road and highway construction/maintenance to private and government clients, and training other professionals in his proprietary technology.
Field: civil engineering (roads and highways) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the totality of the record does not address how the [P]etitioner' s company would specifically affect the conditions of U.S. roads and highways broadly across the U.S.”
“in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work”
“The record does not establish whether employing 21 to 29 workers-in any occupation, in general, or in the particular occupations identified in the business plan-in an unspecified location would have broader implications”
“does not indicate where he plans to establish that consulting company and whether that consulting company would be the U.S. branch”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“does not specify the location where the Petitioner intends to pursue the proposed endeavor and the location where the ... workers ... would work”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“does not establish how its uniqueness may have national or global implications”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“does not explain the technology but appears to be a visual guide to a more detailed in-person presentation”
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
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
AAO found the Petitioner conflated the merit and national importance elements of prong one, and rejected a post-filing letter (referencing a 2022 university field test) under the Matter of Katigbak eligibility-at-filing rule, even though the letter was submitted to bolster the appeal.
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- Matter of Katigbak
- 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