dismissedNOV232022_01B52032022-11-23 · 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 civil engineer, proposed to work in construction and engineering project management while also founding a real estate development company that would build and remodel affordable housing in Texas.
Field: civil engineering / real estate development and construction · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework.”
“he did not adequately explain how these sales forecasts were calculated.”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
“he has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and U.S. employers or their clientele to impact the civil engineering field, the construction industry, the housing market, or the U.S. economy more broadly”
“he has not offered sufficient evidence that the area where his company operates is economically depressed, that he would employ a significant population of workers in that area”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“he did not adequately explain how these sales forecasts were calculated”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“these factors relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“these factors relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“does not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“does not demonstrate that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from his undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
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
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 separated field-level importance (STEM/construction shortage articles) from endeavor-specific impact, finding substantial merit satisfied but national importance not; letter from a potential business partner offering to hire Petitioner was found insufficiently corroborated.
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)(8)
- Poursina v. USCIS
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