dismissedDEC202023_04B52032023-12-20 · 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 sought to establish and manage a Florida-based LLC providing energy assessments, solar panel installations, and general energy implementation services to residential and commercial customers.

Field: solar energy / energy assessment services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found Petitioner qualified as an individual of exceptional ability; not disputed on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“he has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and its clientele to impact his field, the solar industry, or the U.S. economy more broadly”

“he did not elaborate on these projections or provide evidence supporting the need for these additional employees”

“he did not adequately explain how these sales forecasts were calculated”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”

“he has not offered sufficient evidence that his endeavor offers Florida or the United States a substantial economic benefit through employment levels, tax revenue, or business activity”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“he did not elaborate on these projections or provide evidence supporting the need for these additional employees”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“The first prong of the Dhanasar framework focuses on the proposed endeavor; not on the Petitioner's prior work in the field”
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
Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor

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 explicitly relied on expert opinion letters from marketing/strategy professors citing White House and federal agency materials on solar energy's importance, but rejected this as conflating field importance with endeavor-specific importance.

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.

Matter of L-A-C-
Poursina v. USCIS

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show the specific endeavor's impact extends beyond his company/clients to the field, industry, or economy at a nationally significant scale.

Transferable lesson

Support endeavor-specific projections (jobs, revenue, regional impact) with concrete evidence, and use experts to address the endeavor's scale, not the petitioner's credentials or industry generally.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · field_advancement

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer