dismissedMAY292024_07B52032024-05-29 · 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, an industrial engineer, proposed to operate his own startup providing industrial machinery maintenance services, including inspections, diagnostics, and repair using advanced technologies.
Field: industrial engineering / machinery maintenance · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“We are not persuaded by the argument that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance due to the sh01iage of workers in his field.”
“Moreover, shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process.”
“these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved”
“he did not elaborate on these projections or provide evidence supporting the need for these additional employees”
“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims.”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
“he has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and its clientele to impact his industry”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“do not contain sufficient information and explanation ... to show that his specific proposed work offers broader implications”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process”
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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
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 treats the case as dispositive solely on prong 1 national importance, expressly declining to reach prongs 2 and 3 (citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C-). The Petitioner submitted a new 'Business Plan Supplement' on appeal asserting national-level impact, which the AAO rejected as unsubstantiated conclusory claims.
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.
- 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