dismissedJUL122021_02B52032021-07-12 · 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 real estate and construction entrepreneur with 27 years of experience, proposed to establish a company in the United States specializing in construction and real estate, building homes and apartments in underserved neighborhoods.
Field: construction, renovation, and real estate · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“he has not offered sufficient, specific information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his specific proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance.”
“the Petitioner, however, did not offer any relevant supporting evidence, such as a credible business plan, to corroborate his assertions”
“The Petitioner's experience and abilities in his field, however, relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
“he did not, for instance, show any credible business revenue projections to substantiate that his company's future business activity stands to provide substantial economic benefits”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“did not offer any relevant supporting evidence, such as a credible business plan, to corroborate his assertions”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the Petitioner submits, and the record contains, evidence regarding general information relating to real estate and the housing market”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“The Petitioner's experience and abilities in his field, however, relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
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
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
Decision explicitly notes the Director found the petitioner satisfied prong 1's substantial merit component but not national importance; AAO frames dismissal as resting on multiple independent and alternate bases.
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.
- 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