dismissedJUN252021_01B52032021-06-25 · 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 Nigerian-trained CEO, proposed to build low-cost, fireproof rural housing using locally-sourced materials and to engage in real estate sales and development in the U.S., funded in part by his Nigerian company.

Field: real estate / housing development · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

Petitioner failed to establish U.S. equivalency of his foreign law degree, progressive post-baccalaureate experience, and did not meet at least three of the six exceptional-ability criteria (education, experience, license/membership, salary, membership, recognition).

Prong 1 — national importancenot established

“he has provided no estimates as to how many, what types, or in what geographical areas”

“he has not identified where specifically, nor how focusing on these areas translates to an endeavor that is national in scope”

“the evidence is insufficient and lacks the requisite detail necessary to support a finding that the endeavor has national importance”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established

“We conclude that any revenue streams appear speculative in nature.”

“The record, as currently constituted, contains few concrete avenues for financing the proposed endeavor.”

“The record contains little indication that he has building permits, contracts with suppliers, or intellectual property rights”

“he provides few specific details on how he has positioned himself for this to occur”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

degree · discounted
“the evaluation has little probative value in this matter”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“these credibility concerns lead us to question whether the Petitioner attempted to cure deficiencies in the record by creating evidence”
AAO decision text
certification membership · discounted
“the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify specific contributions or their impact in the field have little probative value.”
AAO decision text
funding · discounted
“any revenue streams appear speculative in nature”
AAO decision text

All 6 evidence items

business plan · discounted
“the evidence is insufficient and lacks the requisite detail necessary to support a finding”
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
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish

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 raised serious credibility concerns, including apparent fabrication of employment letters (mismatched signatures, altered dates, inconsistent addresses) and evidence suggesting attorney documents referencing a different petitioner by name and gender pronoun, implying possible reuse of boilerplate from another case.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
Matter of Ho
Matter of L-A-C-
Matter of Otiende
Matter of V-K-
Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer