dismissedJUN282024_06B52032024-06-28 · 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 proposed to start a residential real estate development company building and remodeling energy-efficient homes incorporating solar, insulation, and smart climate-control technologies in a specific city.
Field: residential real estate development / green building · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“her business plan does not sufficiently address who these "necessary actors" are, how she will acquire their services”
“The record does not contain an evidentiary basis to conclude that the effects of her specific proposed endeavor will rise to the level of national importance.”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for the nation.”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“the submitted letters do not provide sufficient information regarding the specific endeavor that the Petitioner will engage in”
“the record does not reflect any progress to achieving the proposed endeavor.”
“the evidence in the record does not sufficiently describe how well situated the Petitioner would be to advance her proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“her plan does not specifically address the means by which she will build or remodel homes”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the testimonial evidence in the record, such as the recommendation letters, do not analyze the proposed endeavor or offer evidence of its impact”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“does not persuasively reflect how the Petitioner's prior performance of the duties described in the experience letters is either a similar effort”
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
- Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- 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
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
AAO expressly withdrew the Director's favorable finding on national importance (prong 1) yet, on de novo review, found prong 1 unmet anyway, while also independently affirming the Director's prong 2 denial; prong 3 was reserved as unnecessary.
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 Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of Y-B-
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