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 Brazilian civil engineer, proposed to work as an entrepreneur by developing and expanding his own U.S. construction company offering a wide range of construction, project management, and infrastructure services.
Field: civil engineering / construction · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director concluded the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; this was not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has provided a vague proposed endeavor, making it difficult to discern its actual potential prospective impact.”
“The Petitioner submitted little evidence to support how his new business would achieve his large-scale employment and revenue projections.”
“he did not explain or document what construction projects he planned, what land he planned to develop, or how he would generate over $36 million in investment.”
“we do not find the emphasis on the Petitioner's skills and experience throughout the record, and on appeal, convincing in establishing the national importance of his proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner did not explain or document what construction projects he planned, what land he planned to develop, or how he would generate over $36 million in investment”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's skills, experience, and knowledge in and of itself is not relevant to demonstrating the national importance of his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · ignored
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
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Notable
The Director had found the Petitioner qualified as an advanced-degree professional (threshold met), but the AAO dismissed solely on Dhanasar prong 1, expressly reserving prongs 2 and 3; case centers on a vague, wide-ranging entrepreneurial construction business with unsupported job-creation and revenue projections.
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
- 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