dismissedOCT032024_02B52032024-10-03 · 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 proposed to open an engineering consulting business providing professional engineering and infrastructure consulting services to small and medium construction companies.
Field: civil/engineering consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner has not described how his consulting business will have a broader impact on the engineering field beyond his clients.”
“It is not the importance of the field that determines an endeavor's national importance, but rather how the Petitioner's specific endeavor will impact the field”
“the business plan does not adequately support the projections of job and revenue creation”
“the lack of supporting details detracts from the credibility and probative value of the business plan”
“we find that the record does not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will sufficiently extend beyond his clients”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the plan does not explain how these forecasts were calculated, or adequately clarify how these projections will be realized”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they did not specify how the Petitioner's business will contribute to the engineering field on a nationally important level”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“These articles and reports are of little evidentiary value as they do not address the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the advisory opinion is of little probative value as Ms. [redacted] letter mainly describes her past experiences with the Petitioner”
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
1,358coded 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 flagged deficient certificates of translation as a preliminary evidentiary problem but proceeded to decide on the merits regardless. AAO also refused to consider a 'construction company' addition raised for the first time in the RFE response as an impermissible material change under Matter of Izummi, limiting its analysis to the endeavor as described in the initial filing.
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)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of Izummi
- 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