dismissedAUG242021_04B52032021-08-24 · 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, co-owner of a maintenance/engineering services company in Florida, proposed to offer engineering and maintenance services to residential and industrial clients, including cement, mining, and aluminum extrusion factories, and to companies restructuring Florida cities.
Field: maintenance, assembly, and renovation engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company, partnerships, and clientele to impact his field or the industry more broadly”
“he has not shown that his projects' future staffing levels and business activity stand to provide substantial economic benefits in Florida or the United States”
“The Petitioner, however, does not explain how these staffing and revenue forecasts were calculated.”
“he has not offered sufficient evidence that the area where they will operate is economically depressed”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“does not explain how these staffing and revenue forecasts were calculated”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“there appear to be unresolved inconsistencies with these statements”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“does not demonstrate that benefits to the regional or national economy... would reach the level of substantial positive economic effects”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
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 identified unresolved inconsistencies between a professional declaration and a supporting letter (dated same-day contracting yet claiming dramatic prior results), invoking Matter of Ho's inconsistency-resolution standard to discount both documents; also noted these documents appeared to have been added on appeal rather than in the original RFE response.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of Ho
- Poursina v. USCIS
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