dismissedJUL012024_06B52032024-07-01 · 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, a civil engineer, sought to establish and manage a construction management business in Florida offering sustainable construction consulting services to real estate developers and construction companies.
Field: civil engineering / sustainable construction · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; this was not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record demonstrated the potential prospective impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is mainly his customers, and not beyond”
“the industry articles failed to demonstrate how the Petitioner's specific endeavor has national implications, significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for the United States”
“the Petitioner's business plan projects that his company will have 17 full-time employees during the first five years”
“Dhanasar requires us to focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake," not the importance of the field, industry, or profession”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“not sufficient to show significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the Petitioner's skills, expertise, and abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“the industry articles failed to demonstrate how the Petitioner's specific endeavor has national implications”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“letters of interest...and a letter of intent...with an initial investment of $50,000 are not sufficient to show significant potential to employ U.S. workers”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
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
The Petitioner argued the Director misapplied the preponderance standard by favoring a 'less likely' scenario; the AAO rejected this framing and affirmed the Director's evidentiary weighing was proper under Chawathe.
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
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of L-A-C-
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