dismissedFEB172023_01B52032023-02-17 · 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, a civil engineer, proposed to continue working with his current employer to develop skills and experience toward eventually starting his own civil engineering consulting firm serving public and private institutions in the U.S.

Field: civil engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional based on two U.S. master's degrees.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor as required”

“none of the letters offers persuasive detail concerning the impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or how such impact would extend beyond the employer he serves and the home buyers”

“he has not provided sufficient evidence to establish how the implications of his proposed endeavor rise to the level of national importance”

“Without evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to his future work, as opposed to his employer”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“none of the letters offers persuasive detail concerning the impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“he has not provided sufficient evidence to establish how the implications of his proposed endeavor rise to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
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

AAO explicitly distinguished national housing shortage articles/reports as relevant to demand for petitioner's field but insufficient to show national importance of his specific proposed endeavor, since benefits attributed to employer rather than petitioner directly.

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 L-A-C-
Poursina v. USCIS

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show his specific proposed endeavor (future firm, current work) had impact extending beyond his employer and local homebuyers to a national scale.

Transferable lesson

Tie the endeavor to quantifiable national-scale economic or employment impact attributable to the petitioner's own work, not general industry conditions or employer's activities.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · geographic_or_shortage_area

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer