dismissedMAY282024_10B52032024-05-28 · 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 to work as a construction operations manager at his own Florida-based construction company, which offers design, remodeling, roofing, and structural repair services to residential and commercial clients.
Field: construction project management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO agreed, that the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“these employment and revenue projections are not supported by details showing their basis”
“the submitted evidence does not reflect that the State of Florida as a whole is an economically depressed area”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
“the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and its future clientele”
“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“these employment and revenue projections are not supported by details showing their basis”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“does not address the Petitioner's business plan, the specific proposed endeavor described therein, its prospective substantial economic impact”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national."”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“None of the articles and reports specifically mention the Petitioner's endeavor or discuss the government's interest in promoting the use of his company.”
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
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- 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
AAO found prong 1 dispositive and expressly reserved prongs 2 and 3, citing Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for declining to reach unnecessary issues.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
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