dismissedMAY102024_05B52032024-05-10 · 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.
A mechanical engineer with industrial maintenance experience sought to expand his craft beer business into a microbrewery in New Jersey producing 5,000 liters per month, while also offering his engineering expertise to grow his U.S. business operations.
Field: mechanical engineering / microbrewery business · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner has not introduced evidence that demonstrates that his proposed endeavor would have substantial positive economic effects.”
“The record does not contain other evidence that demonstrates his proposed endeavor will benefit underserved communities.”
“The articles are general in nature and do not involve the Petitioner or his proposed endeavor.”
“What is missing is any analysis of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor as the opinion letter remains silent on the Petitioner's plan to open a microbrewery”
“His opinion letter is general in nature and seems unconnected to the Petitioner's actual endeavor.”
“the report does not mention the Petitioner or his proposed endeavor or that there is substantial demand for the development of microbreweries”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“these arguments were absent from the materials filed before the RFE was issued”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“is of marginal probative value as it does not meaningfully address the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“The articles are general in nature and do not involve the Petitioner or his proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · ignored
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
- 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 notes an internal inconsistency in the Petitioner's claimed years of experience (10 vs. 8 years) citing Matter of Ho, though this was not made a dispositive issue. The AAO also criticizes the Petitioner for raising new environmental-sustainability arguments only in the RFE response/appeal that were absent from the business plan and employer letter.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of Y-B-
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