dismissedMAY282024_11B52032024-05-28 · 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, a trained electrician and general/operations manager, proposed to own and operate an HVAC and Smart Home installation, repair, and maintenance business based in Orlando, Florida, serving restaurants, hotels, and building management sectors.
Field: HVAC and Smart Home systems installation/repair business · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we conclude the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his clients to impact the HVAC industry or the U.S. economy more broadly”
“The Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his specific, proposed endeavor of owning and operating an HVAC and Smart Home company rather than the importance of the HVAC and Smart Home industry.”
“the record does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized”
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the record does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“none of the authors discuss the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor of owning and operating an HVAC company in the United States”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the analysis offered in the professor's letter is largely limited to general observations about the Petitioner's qualifications and the occupation and industry”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“The Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and experience in his field, however, relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
1,312coded 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 made a favorable finding on 'substantial merit' (first half of prong 1) but found national importance (second half of prong 1) unmet, illustrating the AAO's bifurcated treatment of prong 1's two components; explicitly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 as unnecessary under Bagamasbad.
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
- 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