dismissedFEB272025_01B52032025-02-27 · 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, planned to serve as CEO of a Massachusetts-based company providing construction consulting services focused on efficiency, sustainability, and technological integration for construction projects.
Field: civil engineering / construction consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified for underlying EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his clientele to impact the construction industry or otherwise impact economic initiatives more broadly”
“The fact that a proposed endeavor is carried out by a STEM professional does not necessarily make the endeavor nationally important.”
“While the business plan outlines the intent to hire various employees throughout the five-year period, and to reach several million dollars in revenue by year five, the support for these figures has not been provided.”
“he has not shown that the consulting services performed by the company would represent a significant share of the construction market or otherwise have a national impact”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the support for these figures has not been provided”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“an expert opinion letter concluding that his endeavor is of national importance”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“reports detailing the impact of the construction sector, with a particular focus on affordable housing”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“a petitioner's experience and efficacy, and the overall likelihood of success, is relevant to the second prong”
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
- 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
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 explicitly acknowledged the Director's decision was inadequately reasoned but affirmed the denial anyway on de novo review, and declined to reach prong three under Bagamasbad.
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
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