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, who owns a solar panel installation franchise, proposed to expand into a clean-energy business installing EV charging stations (including solar-powered chargers) with integrated battery storage for businesses, communities, and individuals, initially in Georgia and expanding into neighboring states.
Field: EV charging infrastructure / clean energy (solar, battery storage) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not illustrate how the benefits from his specific activities installing EV chargers in those areas would extend beyond the individuals installing or using his chargers”
“the primary benefits appear to be localized to those small subsets of individuals”
“The evidence, however, does not provide sufficient details regarding the basis for these projections or adequately explain how these staffing and 20-fold increase in sales revenue targets will be realized.”
“the record does not reflect the impact these figures would have to the regional or national economy”
“the Petitioner relies heavily on the value of the solar and EV related fields generally rather than demonstrating how his specific work installing solar EV charging stations would have broader impacts”
“they are largely conclusory and do not provide an evidentiary basis for their claims”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“does not provide sufficient details regarding the basis for these projections or adequately explain how these staffing and 20-fold increase in sales revenue targets will be realized”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“largely conclusory and do not provide an evidentiary basis for their claims”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“do not establish how his work would impact these areas more broadly to demonstrate its national importance”
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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
In a footnote, the AAO flagged (but declined to resolve, since the appeal was otherwise not approvable) significant potential problems under prongs one and two arising from the Petitioner's franchise agreement, including intellectual-property provisions that could limit his 'innovative platform' claims and non-competition/operational clauses that could undermine his ability to be well positioned to advance the endeavor, advising him to address these in any future NIW filing.
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
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