dismissedMAR312022_01B52032022-03-31 · 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 two research/business projects: an IT platform automating customer-facing workflows for small businesses like clinics, churches, daycares, and hotels, and a low-cost machine designed to use locally sourced/scrap materials for local artisans.
Field: mechanical engineering and software programming · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not sufficiently explain or document the potential prospective impact of the specific proposed endeavor to support a finding that it has national importance”
“the Petitioner did not show that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his potential clients or customers to impact the various industries or the U.S. economy more broadly”
“the Petitioner's evidence does not support his assertions, nor did he offer evidence indicating that the areas where the projects would be implemented are economically depressed”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the record does not show any national or worldwide ramifications his projects would have within a field”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“relate to the second prong of the framework, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”
AAO decision text - other · ignored
“we will not consider this evidence for the first time on appeal as it was not presented before the Director”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
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
AAO declined to consider new evidence (independent assessments, sales forecast, EIN documentation) submitted for the first time on appeal, citing Matter of Soriano. Decision explicitly states dismissal grounds are alternate and independent, though only prong 1 was substantively analyzed.
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.
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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