dismissedJAN092024_01B52032024-01-09 · 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 proposed to provide specialized electrical engineering consulting services, through his own consulting company, to U.S. companies using European technology and to German, Austrian, and Swiss electrical companies operating in the U.S., sharing his decades of European electrical design and construction experience.

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

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his specific, proposed endeavor of his particular electrical engineering consulting services through his business rather than the importance of electrical standards, investments, apprenticeships, or the industry or field”

“the alleged shortage of occupations or occupational skills does not render his proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework”

“the record does not show through supporting documentation how his specific consulting services stand to sufficiently extend beyond his prospective clients, to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more broadly”

“the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his business' claimed revenue and employment projections, even if credible or plausible, have significant potential to employ U.S. workers”

“the record does not establish that, beyond the limited benefits provided to its prospective clients, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has broader implications rising to the level of having national importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“the business plan does not establish the benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the alleged shortage of occupations or occupational skills does not render his proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“The Petitioner's experience and abilities in his field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
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
Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
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
Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

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 rejected STEM-shortage/occupational-shortage argument as a basis for national importance, noting such shortages are addressed through the labor certification process instead; also distinguished substantial merit (found met) from national importance (found not met).

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

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer