dismissedJUL012021_01B52032021-07-01 · 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 architectural project manager with prior experience in Brazil, proposed to continue work in architectural project management, real estate, and civil engineering in the United States.

Field: architectural project management / civil engineering / real estate · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner again repeatedly relies on her experience and prior career accomplishments in Brazil to establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor”

“to evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of her work, not the importance or economic benefits of her industry”

“the Petitioner does not offer sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”

“Without evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to her future work, the record does not show that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”

“we similarly find the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her employer(s) and clients to impact the industry more broadly”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's expertise and record of success in previous positions are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of her work, not the importance or economic benefits of her industry”
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
Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor

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 adopts and affirms the Director's decision under Matter of P. Singh/Burbano rather than conducting fully independent analysis, while still adding its own de novo comments on prong 1.

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.

Chen v. INS
Matter of L-A-C-
Poursina v. USCIS

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show the specific endeavor's prospective impact was nationally significant, instead arguing industry importance and personal credentials—prong-1 national importance not met.

Transferable lesson

Support prong-1 with concrete, endeavor-specific evidence of scale (job creation, broader field impact, economic data), not industry importance or personal achievements.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

economic_growth_generic · field_advancement

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer