dismissedAUG262024_09B52032024-08-26 · motion_reconsider · 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 a comprehensive home building and remodeling company, and separately to develop two insulated cement block production facilities, aiming to increase affordable housing availability.
Field: construction and real estate / home building · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the fact that a petitioner is operating in an industry or sector that is the subject of national initiatives is not sufficient, in and of itself, to establish the national importance of a specific endeavor”
“he has not established that it will have an economic impact that rises to the level of national importance”
“he has not provided further information regarding the project's viability or potential impact on the construction industry”
“The Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor will have the potential to employ a significant number of U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“he has not established that it will have an economic impact that rises to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text - patents · discounted
“he has not provided further information regarding the project's viability or potential impact on the construction industry”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“The Petitioner's unsupported assertion that we used an incorrect standard of proof is insufficient to establish eligibility”
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
1,358coded 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
This is a motion to reconsider a prior AAO appellate dismissal (not a first appeal); the AAO addressed the Petitioner's argument that it applied an incorrect (heightened) standard of proof and rejected it as unsupported. The AAO declined to reach prongs 2 and 3, citing INS v. Bagamasbad.
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. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- 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