dismissedNOV142023_01B52032023-11-14 · 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 mining industry entrepreneur, proposed to operate his own business offering management consulting services to mining-sector corporations, particularly those producing construction aggregates such as limestone and asphalt.

Field: mining/business consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

The petitioner claimed advanced-degree-equivalent status via a bachelor's degree plus five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience, but the record showed the degree was earned less than five years before filing and the experience letters contained unresolved inconsistencies with prior visa applications and overlapping employment claims.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

“Nor does the evidence demonstrate that the use of the Petitioner's experience will reach beyond benefitting his own company and clients or have broader implications within the field”

“he has not supported these assertions with sufficient independent, objective evidence.”

“he does not explain how a shortage of engineers demonstrates the national importance of his proposed endeavor.”

“these investments appear to be profits reinvested in the business itself, and the Petitioner does not describe how these investments will contribute to the field broadly.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“these qualities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework...which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“these investments appear to be profits reinvested in the business itself, and the Petitioner does not describe how these investments will contribute to the field broadly.”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies.”
AAO decision text
degree · discounted
“the Petitioner has not established that he possessed an advanced degree as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2).”
AAO decision text
media · discounted
“Much of the Petitioner's evidence relates to shortage, trends and needs in the field generally, rather than his specific proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text

All 6 evidence items

other · discounted
“the advisory opinion is of little probative value as it does not meaningfully address the details of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and why it would have national importance.”
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
Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
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

The AAO disagreed with the Director's own finding that the petitioner qualified for the advanced-degree professional classification, identifying unresolved inconsistencies in employment history and a degree-timing problem, but declined to base dismissal on this since the petitioner had not been put on notice of the issue in the RFE; the AAO nonetheless flagged it for any future filing. The AAO also noted the Director had found prong 2 satisfied without analysis, but declined to disturb or rely on that finding since prong 1 was dispositive.

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)
8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(12)
8 C.F.R. 103.3
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
Matter of Ho
Matter of Katigbak
Matter of L-A-C-
Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer