dismissedJUN222023_04B52032023-06-22 · 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, an architectural/civil engineer, initially proposed to work as an architectural engineering manager for U.S. construction companies building roads and bridges, then revised his endeavor to founding his own company installing aluminum and glass structures in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama.

Field: architectural/civil engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found Petitioner qualifies as advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we conclude that the Petitioner has not provided a specific or consistent proposed endeavor activity such that we can determine its substantial merit and national importance”

“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”

“the business plan by itself does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized”

“The Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence, aside from claims in his business plan and his own statement, that his company's staffing levels and business activity stand to provide substantial economic benefits”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“these documents relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national."”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“only address his past accomplishments as an architectural engineer impacting his workplace and do not address national importance”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized”
AAO decision text
media · discounted
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“Where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, USCIS is not required to accept it or may give it less weight.”
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

The AAO emphasized the Petitioner's shifting/inconsistent description of the proposed endeavor (initially direct employment vs. later founding own company) as undermining the national-importance analysis, treating this inconsistency itself as a distinct basis for denial under Matter of Ho's evidentiary-resolution standard.

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
INA 203(b)(2)
Matter of E-M-
Matter of Ho
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer