dismissedJAN262024_05B52032024-01-26 · 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, an electrical engineer, proposed to own and operate a solar energy engineering business in Florida providing installation, maintenance, and training services.
Field: electrical engineering / solar energy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; this was not contested on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employees and his company's customers to enhance societal welfare on a broader scale indicative of national importance.”
“he has not offered sufficient evidence that the area where his company plans to operate in Florida will be an area that is economically depressed, that he would employ a significant population of workers in that area, or that his endeavor would offer the region or its population a substantial economic benefit through employment levels, tax revenue, or business activity.”
“We do not dispute the importance of the solar energy engineering field. But the field's importance overall is not sufficient to establish the national importance of the endeavor proposed here.”
“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or will create a broad impact without providing evidence to corroborate such claims.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“he has not offered sufficient evidence that the area where his company plans to operate in Florida will be an area that is economically depressed”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
- recommendation letter · discounted
- motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner reiterates the same arguments and resubmits previously submitted documents”
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
- 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
- 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 →
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
- 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