dismissedFEB222024_02B52032024-02-22 · 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.

A civil engineer with experience in metal scaffolding and construction support structures proposed to continue working in this field in the United States while training construction workers and engineers.

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

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found and AAO agreed Petitioner established EB-2 eligibility as an advanced degree professional based on bachelor's degree plus five years of progressive experience.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“For all of the reasons explained above, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor is of national importance.”

“Consideration of a petitioner's skills and work experience is relevant to the second prong, in which we determine whether they are well positioned to advance their proposed endeavor.”

“But the Petitioner does not explain how his training would be adapted for use in an existing company employing him or for working and training conditions in the United States construction industry.”

“However, the writer does not provide details regarding the nature and extent of these predicted contributions, and does not refer to evidence supporting his assertions.”

“the letters do not demonstrate that that benefit would extend beyond those particular workers.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“The Petitioner's plans to establish and direct a new company formed after the filing date of his petition cannot retroactively establish eligibility.”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“the writer does not provide details regarding the nature and extent of these predicted contributions, and does not refer to evidence supporting his assertions.”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“Consideration of a petitioner's skills and work experience is relevant to the second prong”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“evidence concerning the economic impact of the entire field of engineering does not aid in establishing the national importance of the Petitioner's specific endeavor.”
AAO decision text
degree · credited

Where this case turned

Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
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 found the Petitioner made an impermissible material change to his proposed endeavor by shifting from seeking employment as a civil engineer to founding and directing his own company in response to the RFE, and thus limited its analysis to the originally stated endeavor. The decision also cites Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) on the discretionary nature of NIW determinations.

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. 103.2(b)(1)
8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(12)
8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(8)
8 C.F.R. 103.3
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
Flores v. Garland
Matter of Izummi
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer