dismissedMAR152024_04B52032024-03-15 · 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 civil engineer and project manager, proposed to operate his own U.S. consultancy providing construction project management services to residential and public-sector clients, aiming to help companies optimize processes, reduce costs, and increase revenue.
Field: civil engineering / construction project management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“he has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and its clientele to impact his field”
“these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved”
“he has not offered sufficient evidence that his endeavor offers Florida or the United States a substantial economic benefit through employment levels, tax revenue, or business activity”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“he did not elaborate on these projections or provide evidence supporting the need for these additional employees”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the relevant question is not the value of infrastructure projects, entrepreneurship, or the Petitioner's general occupation”
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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
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 agreed the endeavor had substantial merit but found no national importance, emphasizing that letters about the Petitioner's skills and general field-importance arguments (infrastructure, entrepreneurship benefits) were misplaced under prong 1 and belonged to prong 2 analysis not reached.
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.
- 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