dismissedMAR032025_03B52032025-03-03 · 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 chemical engineer, proposed to establish and serve as CEO of a company providing specialized consulting services to industrial chemistry and food manufacturing companies, including efficiency, safety, and certification assistance.
Field: chemical engineering / industrial chemistry and food manufacturing consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“the alleged shortage of occupations or occupational skills does not render a proposed endeavor nationally important under Dhanasar”
“the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient supporting evidence corroborating these projected employment and financial figures”
“the Petitioner has not sufficiently detailed or established how her particular endeavor will meaningfully impact the broader governmental initiative of chemical engineering”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient supporting evidence corroborating these projected employment and financial figures”
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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
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
Petitioner stated on appeal that a supplemental brief would be submitted within 30 days, but the record contained no such brief; AAO noted this and proceeded to decide based on the existing record.
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