dismissedFEB122024_02B52032024-02-12 · 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 proposed to serve as CEO of a Florida-based designer and manufacturer of doors, trim, and cabinetry, providing building materials to national, state, and local builders and contributing to affordable housing needs.

Field: residential construction / building materials manufacturing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

AAO disagreed with the Director's finding that the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional due to unresolved name discrepancies on the foreign diploma and lack of academic transcripts/equivalency evidence; however, since Petitioner was not on notice, this was not the basis of dismissal. Exceptional ability claim was not evaluated by the Director and AAO declined to address it in the first instance.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner's intended contributions to the field will extend beyond his employer and its clients”

“These incremental figures are not consistent with the Petitioner's statement that he will contribute an additional $5 million in federal taxes over the next five years.”

“Nor does the evidence demonstrate that the use of the Petitioner's experience will reach beyond benefitting”

“the advisory opinion is of little probative value as it does not meaningfully address the details of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”

“The evidence does not suggest that the Petitioner's skills differ from or improve upon those already available and in use in the United States.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

degree · discounted
“EDGE does not determine that this type of credential is equivalent to a U.S. master's degree as claimed.”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“these qualities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework...which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“the advisory opinion is of little probative value as it does not meaningfully address the details of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
contract revenue · discounted
“These incremental figures are not consistent with the Petitioner's statement that he will contribute an additional $5 million in federal taxes”
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

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

AAO disagreed with the Director's favorable threshold finding (advanced degree) due to unresolved name discrepancies between the Petitioner and his foreign diploma, but declined to make this the basis of dismissal since Petitioner lacked notice; it flagged this for resolution in any future filing and indicated the case would be remanded for exceptional-ability analysis if national importance were later established. AAO also found the expert opinion's financial figures inconsistent with the Petitioner's own tax-contribution claims.

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

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer