dismissedJUN182024_04B52032024-06-18 · 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 facility manager, proposed to develop and implement commercial facility-management projects—emphasizing sustainability, cost reduction, and efficiency—drawing on his prior experience with technology implementation and pandemic-related sanitization coordination in Brazil.
Field: facility management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional; not contested on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not establish its national importance”
“he has not shown how these projects resulted (or could result) in broader implications to the field beyond the benefits realized by his former employers and customers”
“he does not provide further explanation regarding how these benefits, even ifrealized, would have broader implications to the field”
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact to the field have little probative value”
“the Petitioner relies primarily on the economic impact of the facility management industry, stating "the [f]acility [m]anagement [m]arket ... is expected to reach USD 1505.6 billion in 2027"”
“both expert opinion letters rely primarily on the importance of the facility management industry to establish the national importance of the endeavor”
“much of the content of the expert opinion letters lacks relevance with respect to the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“much of the content of the expert opinion letters lacks relevance with respect to the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“it is not sufficient to establish the national importance of their proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the Petitioner has not provided a sufficient explanation of the prospective impact directly attributable to his proposed work”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
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 noted the Petitioner's appeal largely copy-pasted RFE response language without identifying specific errors, which alone would warrant dismissal under 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(1)(v), though AAO proceeded to de novo review anyway.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Caron Int'l
- Matter of D-R-
- Matter of L-A-C-
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