dismissedJUL112023_02B52032023-07-11 · 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 construction specialist, proposed to continue working in civil construction management (or as President of his own construction company), providing planning, budgeting, quality, and safety oversight services for construction projects.
Field: civil construction/civil engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The issue here, however, is not the national importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
“we conclude the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company or its clientele to impact the civil engineering field”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects”
“The letters from Dr. D-P- and Dr. A-A- do not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“do not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text - resume experience · ignored
“relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
2,589coded 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's proposed endeavor shifted between appeal stages (continuing as employee vs. becoming President of his own company), which the AAO noted but did not treat as fatal on its own; general industry-level articles about construction economics were found insufficient to establish endeavor-specific national importance.
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.
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
- The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
- The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
- The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
- The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod