dismissedMAY252023_02B52032023-05-25 · 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, a civil engineer, proposed to continue operating as president of his own consulting company, managing infrastructure and other projects for clients in Florida and Massachusetts and training others in his methods.
Field: civil engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner here has not established that his training or teaching activities would rise to the level of having national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly”
“we conclude that, while they speak to the Petitioner's character and the quality of his work, they do not provide sufficient detail concerning the impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or how such impact would extend beyond his company and clients”
“we agree with the Director's determination that it includes discrepancies in its projections and does not provide a source or rationale to explain how the projections were calculated”
“Without evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to his future work operating a consultancy company, the record does not show that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not provide sufficient detail concerning the impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or how such impact would extend beyond his company and clients”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“it includes discrepancies in its projections and does not provide a source or rationale to explain how the projections were calculated”
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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
1,358coded 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
The Petitioner relied on a business plan citing rankings from 'Stacker' identifying cities with high poverty rates, but the AAO found no evidence this source was credible or objective; the AAO also noted that untranslated foreign-language documents and post-filing-date evidence were properly excluded by the Director under 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b).
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)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(12)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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