dismissedFEB132025_07B52032025-02-13 · 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 sought to work as a rope access specialist and operate his own construction company in Florida, applying rope access techniques to complex industrial and infrastructure work.
Field: rope access / construction · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not supported his claims that his spec[fic endeavor will impact the industry more broadly.”
“these benefits relate to the overall benefits and importance of his industry, and the rope access technician occupation.”
“without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected economic impact or job creation directly attributable to his future work”
“the record does not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance as contemplated under the Dhanasar framework.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“they establish the Petitioner has had a successful career, they do not establish the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“these benefits relate to the overall benefits and importance of his industry, and the rope access technician occupation.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“a petitioner's expertise and record of success are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- 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
2,589coded 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 agreed with Petitioner that the Director erred by conflating past-work impetus-for-progress standard with prospective national importance under prong 1, and withdrew that portion of the Director's reasoning, but found the error harmless since the ultimate national importance conclusion was independently correct.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of O-R-E-
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