dismissedAUG222024_10B52032024-08-22 · appeal · Nebraska 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 construction project manager engineer with a master's degree in planning and environment, proposed to operate a Florida-based construction and remodeling company providing services to residential and commercial property owners.
Field: civil construction/engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not show through supporting documentation how her endeavor sufficiently extends beyond her prospective clients or employees, to impact the field or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance”
“she did not present any supporting evidence, corroborating the assertions and figures to explain how she arrived at these numbers in the business plan”
“the Petitioner did not demonstrate how her business plan's claimed revenue and employment projections have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation”
“the Petitioner did not establish the significance of this data to show that the benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner did not present any supporting evidence, corroborating the assertions and figures to explain how she arrived at these numbers”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“this and the other letters do not show the broader impact of the Petitioner's work and instead discuss project limited to her specific clients”
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
- 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 explicitly states each stated reason is an independent and alternate basis for dismissal, despite declining to reach prongs 2 and 3; cites Flores v. Garland regarding discretionary nature of NIW grants.
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 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