dismissedNOV202023_01B52032023-11-20 · combined · 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 originally proposed to own and operate his own construction management business providing telecommunications infrastructure construction services, but later changed to a full-time construction supervisor position with an established U.S. company.

Field: telecommunications infrastructure construction management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“concluding that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his proposed endeavor has national importance as required under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework”

“the letter, which underscored the Petitioner's plans to provide telecommunications construction management services to underserved rural areas through his own company, was not supported by the Petitioner's own business plan, which indicated his intent to provides service related to "construction and maintenance of urban structures."”

“he does not assert how these new facts establish his eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

motion resubmission · discounted
“otherwise consists of evidence that was already in the record as well as a brief that includes lengthy quotations from that previously submitted evidence”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“where an opinion is not in accord with other information in the record, we are not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“was not supported by the Petitioner's own business plan, which indicated his intent to provides service related to "construction and maintenance of urban structures."”
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
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

This is a combined motion to reopen/reconsider following a prior AAO appeal dismissal; the AAO addresses the Petitioner's material change in proposed endeavor (from self-employed business owner to employee) under 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(1), but clarifies the appeal was not dismissed solely on that basis, and reaffirms the national importance failure as dispositive without reaching prongs 2 or 3.

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. 103.5
Matter of Caron Int'l
Matter of Coelho
Matter of Izummi
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer