dismissedJUL292024_05B52032024-07-29 · 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 Brazilian civil engineer, sought to establish and expand a U.S.-based engineering consulting and project management firm serving the construction industry.
Field: civil engineering / construction project management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“merely working in the engineering and construction fields or starting a civil engineering consulting business for the construction industry is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“The industry reports and articles submitted do not discuss any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation specifically attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
“we agree with the determination of the Director that the Petitioner's projected revenue of $8.94 million and creation of 35 direct jobs over five years does not demonstrate a national economic impact”
“The Petitioner does not demonstrate that his proposed endeavor extends beyond his business and his future clients to impact the field or any other industries or the U.S. economy more broadly”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“does not demonstrate a national economic impact in light of the IBIS world data indicating that the construction management industry generates $236.2 billion annually”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
- recommendation letter · discounted
- other · discounted
“Instead of focusing on the importance of an industry or the need for workers in a specific industry, we focus on the specific endeavor”
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
AAO reserved opinion on prong three, expressly declining to reach it (citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C-) after finding prong one dispositive; petitioner's HUBZone and job-creation ripple-effect arguments were rejected as merely local/industry-level benefits rather than 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.
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
- 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