dismissedNOV042024_09B52032024-11-04 · 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 sought to launch and grow a U.S.-based consulting and training company serving organizations deploying broadband/high-speed internet and wireless network infrastructure, including in underserved areas.

Field: telecommunications engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found petitioner did not qualify as advanced degree professional, but AAO reserved this issue since the NIW denial was dispositive.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”

“A local physical therapy business and a shortage of physical therapists in the United States does not render the proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework.”

“these projections are not supported by relevant or probative evidence, details showing their basis, or an explanation of how they will be realized”

“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact to the field have little probative value.”

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his Florida-based consulting business would benefit an economically depressed area”

“the Petitioner does not offer a sufficiently direct evidentiary tie between his proposed endeavor and the claimed economic results”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact to the field have little probative value.”
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
Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
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 explicitly held that reliance on the importance of the U.S. technology/telecommunications industry generally, rather than the specific endeavor, misapplies Dhanasar; used a physical-therapy hypothetical as an analogy to reject the shortage/local-benefit argument.

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
Matter of L-A-C-
USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner conflated importance of the broadband/telecom industry generally with the national importance of his specific consulting company, offering only generalized, evidence-free projections of economic impact.

Transferable lesson

Tie the proposed endeavor to concrete, sourced projections of national/regional economic or employment impact—industry importance or generic business growth claims alone are insufficient.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · geographic_or_shortage_area · us_competitiveness

Evidence targeting

mixed

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer