dismissedDEC132022_01B52032022-12-13 · 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, CEO and co-founder of a technology company, proposed to grow his company by creating U.S. 'Showrooms' to distribute and rent out its proprietary product, with claimed applications in events, entertainment, education, and the military.
Field: technology (event/rental product technology) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found, and the AAO did not disturb, that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we conclude that the primary benefits of the proposed endeavor accrue to the Petitioner's own business and employment”
“As the record currently stands, these projections appear to be little more than aspirations and conjecture.”
“the wide applicability of the technology does not sufficiently establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value.”
“the conclusions provided in the report offer little support for the actual impact of the proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“these projections appear to be little more than aspirations and conjecture”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value.”
AAO decision text - patents · discounted
“suggests that the technology is not available publicly or to the nation at large”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“he has not sufficiently established how such evidence demonstrates the proposed endeavor's national importance”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the conclusions provided in the report offer little support for the actual impact of the proposed endeavor”
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
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
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
Company and product names are heavily redacted throughout with (b)(6)-style blackouts, making the specific technology unidentifiable; the AAO expressly declined to reach prongs two and three after finding prong one dispositive.
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)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- INA 291
- Matter of E-M-
- 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