dismissedMAR052024_02B52032024-03-05 · appeal · Nebraska 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 electrical engineer, proposed to continue working in the U.S. for a company providing energy audits, alternative energy sources, and energy efficiency consulting to homes and businesses.
Field: electrical engineering / energy efficiency · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the evidence did not show that it would have "implications beyond his prospective employer."”
“providing services in the area of energy efficiency, without more, is not sufficient to show national importance.”
“he has not provided specifics regarding this business or asserted that it would potentially have substantial positive effects in terms ofjob creation or revenue”
“the Petitioner has not shown how his provision of services such as energy audits and energy efficiency consulting would have implications beyond the individuals or organizations that would be his employer's customers”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- other · discounted
“this evidence primarily focuses on the measures that can be taken by local governments to encourage energy efficiency”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“The Petitioner does not assert that these documents pertain to the national importance of his proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - business plan · ignored
“Because a petitioner must meet eligibility requirements at the time of filing the petition, we will not consider that business plan”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
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
AAO declined to consider a business plan submitted with a subsequently-filed petition, citing the rule that eligibility must be established as of the filing date of the petition under review.
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
- The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
- The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
- The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
- The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod