dismissedJUL102024_09B52032024-07-10 · 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 direct his own consulting company providing engineering, construction, and asphalt-laying services, including an innovative sewage-treatment (biodigester) system.
Field: civil engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; AAO did not revisit this and declined to reach it further since appeal was dismissed on prong one.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not demonstrate its national importance.”
“the importance of an industry in which a petitioner intends to work is not sufficient to establish the national importance of an endeavor”
“a shortage of qualified professionals alone does not render the Petitioner's work nationally important under the Dhanasar precedent decision.”
“the business plan does not establish his services will result in meaningful impact to the industry beyond his direct customers.”
“the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these projections.”
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan does not establish his services will result in meaningful impact to the industry beyond his direct customers.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they establish the Petitioner has had a successful career, they do not establish the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the importance of an industry in which a petitioner intends to work is not sufficient to establish the national importance of an endeavor”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these projections.”
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
- 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 expressly withdrew the Director's substantial-merit finding but still dismissed on national importance; also clarified that labor-shortage/labor-certification benefits are properly weighed under prong three, not prong one.
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 L-A-C-
- Matter of O-R-E-
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