dismissedMAR202024_04B52032024-03-20 · 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.
Petitioner proposed to continue serving as CEO of his two companies, one coordinating construction projects and the other handling related investments, with plans to expand and address affordable housing shortages.
Field: real estate construction · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“these employment and revenue projections are not supported by details showing their basis, nor do they demonstrate a significant potential to either employ U.S. workers or to substantially impact the regional or national economy”
“he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
“they do not offer persuasive detail concerning the impact of his proposed endeavor or how such impact would extend beyond his business and/or customers”
“we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake," not the importance or economic benefits of his profession or industry”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's role stands to sufficiently extend beyond his own companies and their clients to impact the industry more broadly”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“these employment and revenue projections are not supported by details showing their basis”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not offer persuasive detail concerning the impact of his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“the articles and reports do not discuss any particulars of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or its prospective impact”
AAO decision text - patents · ignored
“we cannot consider the patent application here”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's expertise and record of success are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”
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
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- 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
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 declined to consider a patent application because it was filed after the petition's filing date, citing Katigbak's eligibility-at-time-of-filing rule; all prongs beyond prong 1 were expressly reserved under Bagamasbad/L-A-C- reasoning.
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)(12)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Katigbak
- 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