dismissedNOV072024_02B52032024-11-07 · 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, a head engineering consultant, proposed to launch his own mechanical engineering consultancy in the United States.
Field: mechanical engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor would have national importance.”
“we agree with the Director that the submitted evidence, including the Petitioner's business plan, past work contracts, and industry reports and articles, do not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor to launch a mechanical engineering consultancy.”
“he does not further elaborate how the evidence submitted with his petition establishes his eligibility.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“do not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor to launch a mechanical engineering consultancy”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“do not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor to launch a mechanical engineering consultancy”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“do not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor to launch a mechanical engineering consultancy”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
1,358coded 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 adopts and affirms the Director's decision under Matter of Burbano rather than conducting independent analysis, and faults the Petitioner for not elaborating on the significance of the evidence, citing Repaka v. Beers regarding the burden to explain proffered evidence.
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
- Chen v. INS
- Matter of L-A-C-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution