dismissedNOV022022_01B52032022-11-02 · 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 Beneficiary, president of the petitioning company, sought a waiver of the job offer requirement to continue operating his U.S. manufacturing business producing soap, detergent, and hand sanitizer, claiming national economic and, later, public-health importance.

Field: chemical/cleaning products manufacturing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

Although the Director's second decision found the Beneficiary qualified as an advanced-degree professional, the AAO's concluding paragraph states the Petitioner also failed to establish the Beneficiary's qualification for the underlying classification, without further analysis reconciling this with the Director's finding.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong”

“The identical language in the submitted letters partially undermines their probative value.”

“this projection relied on assumptions about growth and expansion which had not yet taken place, and the Petitioner did not establish the reliability of those assumptions”

“Absent some evidentiary justification for the "32 new jobs" figure, the Petitioner has not established the relevance of the ... assessment.”

“Employment in an industry with substantial merit does not inherently give national importance to that employment”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“The identical language in the submitted letters partially undermines their probative value.”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“this projection relied on assumptions about growth and expansion which had not yet taken place”
AAO decision text
contract revenue · discounted
“the growth shown on tax returns in the record does not amount to a doubling of gross revenues in 2017-2018”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“The one-page document does not cite any source for the "32 new jobs" figure other than the Petitioner itself.”
AAO decision text
motion resubmission · discounted
“The Petitioner's activities during 2020 cannot retroactively establish eligibility as of the petition's August 2018 filing date.”
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 not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts

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

The AAO's concluding paragraph asserts the Beneficiary did not qualify for the underlying classification, apparently contradicting the Director's second decision, which had found the Beneficiary met the advanced-degree requirement; the AAO does not explain this discrepancy. The decision also scrutinizes statistical 'multiplier' economic-impact modeling and rejects post-filing COVID-19 pandemic evidence as unable to establish eligibility as of the 2018 filing date.

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)
Matter of L-A-C-
Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer