dismissedJUN272024_02B52032024-06-27 · 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 sought to work as a project manager through his own company, bidding on and fulfilling government procurement contracts to supply maintenance equipment and parts to railway companies.
Field: project management / railway maintenance and construction · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not identified a specific proposed endeavor that he seeks to undertake.”
“He does not identify a specific railway project, location, or scope of services to be completed.”
“he does not provide details of those revenue streams, or the steps he would take to advance them.”
“the Petitioner has not established that the economic, scientific, or cultural impacts of his proposed endeavor would rise to the level of national importance.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“does not provide a current or future staffing model for his company or support the revenue projections with probative documentation”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the Petitioner has not provided additional details regarding the contracts, the potential to win future contracts, or a greater explanation of the business model”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“it does not establish the Petitioner's future plans or the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
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
1,358coded 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 decision includes a footnote citing Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) and other circuit precedent characterizing NIW grants as discretionary in nature, joining several other circuits on this point.
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
- 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