dismissedMAY302024_08B52032024-05-30 · 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 architect, intended to work as a project manager in the civil engineering and construction industry, executing commercial, corporate, and residential projects.

Field: civil engineering/construction project management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional based on bachelor's degree and five years of progressive experience; not disputed on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show that his endeavor would broadly impact his field or that it has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise benefit the U.S. regional or national economy.”

“the articles and industry reports do not mention the Petitioner's specific endeavor or discuss its specific implications, but rather broadly address topics that are loosely related to the endeavor”

“the Petitioner does not offer evidence, such as empirical data quantifying what is meant by "extensive labor," nor does he provide calculations of his endeavor's projected economic impact.”

“the Petitioner has not provided sufficient supporting evidence to establish that he would operate on a large enough scale as to rise to the level of national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

media · discounted
“do not mention the Petitioner's specific endeavor or discuss its specific implications, but rather broadly address topics that are loosely related”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“Evidence of the Petitioner's prior success as a project manager...do not demonstrate the endeavor's national importance.”
AAO decision text
resume experience · credited

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
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 expressly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the proposition that adjudicators need not decide unnecessary issues; also adopted and affirmed the Director's decision under Matter of Burbano.

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)
Chen v. INS
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer