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 project manager with a background in civil engineering, proposed various inconsistent endeavors related to sustainable construction, including an engineering consulting company in Massachusetts and, later, a solar panel installation and maintenance business in Florida.
Field: sustainable construction / solar panel installation · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not provide a consistent account of the planned endeavor”
“the Petitioner has not established how his endeavor's impact would extend beyond his business's clients”
“we conclude that the Petitioner has not provided a specific or consistent proposed endeavor activity such that we can determine its national importance”
“These letters are insufficient to establish what impact the Petitioner's endeavor would have on his field or how it would be nationally important”
“However, the Petitioner does not provide documentation establishing that the area where his company will operate is economically depressed”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“does not specify what contributions it refers to”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“it does not establish to what degree its operations will have these impacts”
AAO decision text - resume experience · ignored
- certification membership · ignored
- other · discounted
“There is no indication in the record that the Petitioner is trained or licensed as an architect”
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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
Notable
The decision emphasizes shifting, inconsistent descriptions of the proposed endeavor across the initial filing, RFE response, and appeal (environmental engineering, architecture, engineering consulting in Massachusetts, then solar panel installation in Florida), applying Matter of Ho's discrepancy-resolution rule to find the endeavor itself was never clearly identified, which alone doomed the national importance analysis. AAO reserved prongs 2 and 3 entirely.
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
- Matter of Ho
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
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