dismissedFEB132025_04B52032025-02-13 · appeal · Nebraska 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 operate a company developing and providing electric vehicle charging stations, smart charging controller software, installation, and maintenance services in the United States.
Field: electric vehicle charging infrastructure · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“These letters, however, do not offer insight into a specific endeavor that the Petitioner intends to undertake.”
“he does not provide an explanation of how an expansion of hundreds of charging stations would impact a purported need in the tens of millions”
“The Petitioner has not, however, provided a sufficient basis for these projections, nor are the numbers corroborated by probative evidence”
“he has not explained how his proposed endeavor would position the United States ahead of other nations or achieve or retain technology leadership”
“the asserted national impacts are not sufficiently supported by objective evidence related to a specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“do not offer insight into a specific endeavor that the Petitioner intends to undertake”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“has not provided a sufficient basis for these projections, nor are the numbers corroborated by probative evidence”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“does not speak to how the Petitioner's individual endeavor to build or modify electric vehicle charging stations would have a potential prospective impact of national importance”
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
- 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
AAO footnote cites Flores v. Garland and other circuits confirming NIW denials are discretionary. AAO reserved both the second and third Dhanasar prongs and a separate ETA-9089 evidentiary issue because the first-prong failure was 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. 103.3
- Flores v. Garland
- 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