dismissedNOV032025_01B52032025-11-03 · appeal
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 sought to establish a company developing and operating regional manufacturing hubs for solar-integrated, modular electric vehicle charging stations, partnering with universities and research institutions.
Field: solar power / electric vehicle charging engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO agreed Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional based on his U.S. MBA and foreign mechanical engineering bachelor's equivalent.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the opinion letter does not substantively discuss the Petitioner or the endeavor.”
“his opinion is largely conclusory and does not adequately explain how the Petitioner's work would produce such nationally impmtant impacts.”
“Without evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to his future work, the record does not show any benefits”
“it does not articulate how his achievement on EV charging would extend beyond the company and its clients to impact his field more broadly”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not discuss the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or the impact thereof”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“it does not articulate how his achievement on EV charging would extend beyond the company and its clients”
AAO decision text - patents · discounted
“the Petitioner did not submit evidence showing that he filed a nonprovisional patent application thereafter”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
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 decision inconsistently refers to the Petitioner using both male and female pronouns ('he'/'she') in the same paragraphs, likely a template/OCR artifact rather than a substantive issue.
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
- 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