dismissedDEC122024_05B52032024-12-12 · 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, an aeronautical engineer, proposed to establish a company providing aircraft maintenance, repair, overhaul, valuation, and consulting services, headquartered in Florida with additional units in Georgia and North Carolina.
Field: aeronautical engineering / aircraft maintenance and repair services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the matter here is not whether these initiatives, as well as the topics of aviation safety and technological innovation, or similarly related subjects, are nationally important”
“the alleged shortage of occupations or occupational skills does not render his proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework”
“the Petitioner did not present any supporting evidence, corroborating the assertions and figures”
“the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his company would largely influence the field and rise to the level of national importance”
“The record does not show through supporting documentation how his endeavor sufficiently extends beyond his prospective clients, to impact the field or the U.S. economy more broadly”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner did not present any supporting evidence, corroborating the assertions and figures”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the matter here is not whether these initiatives...are nationally important”
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
- 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 cites Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) to note the discretionary nature of NIW grants, joining other circuits; declines to reach prongs 2 and 3 citing INS v. Bagamasbad on unnecessary advisory findings.
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
- INA 203(b)(2)
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