dismissedDEC222022_02B52032022-12-22 · 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 serve as Production Manager and Lead Designer for M-T- Corp., a U.S. jewelry and watch customization company he founded as a sister company to his Brazilian jewelry business, creating custom jewelry and launching a new watch brand.
Field: jewelry and luxury watch design · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO did not disturb, that Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his own company to impact the jewelry and luxury watch industries more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance”
“the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, which entails working as the production manager and lead designer for a company he founded, benefits the company, its clients, and its customers”
“without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work on behalf of M-T- Corp.”
“At issue here is not the intrinsic importance or value of custom jewelry and watches, but rather the national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not explain how the Petitioner's specific endeavor will impact or benefit the industry”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or will create a broad impact without providing evidence to corroborate such claims.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
2,501coded 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
Petitioner argued the Director applied a stricter-than-preponderance standard of proof; AAO rejected this by restating the Chawathe preponderance standard and finding the deficiency was evidentiary, not standard-of-proof-related.
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
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of L-A-C-
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