dismissedOCT182024_04B52032024-10-18 · 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, sought to develop an asphalt and paving consulting services firm in Vermont, providing training in paving/asphalt best practices and management consulting to construction firms.

Field: civil engineering / asphalt and paving consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found Petitioner qualified for underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we find the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his clientele to impact the construction industry, the paving industry, or otherwise impact economic initiatives more broadly”

“he has not shown that the company' s future staffing levels, business activity, associated tax revenue, and financial initiatives stand to provide substantial economic benefits”

“the Dhanasar framework instructs us to evaluate the impact of the specific proposed endeavor, rather than the field or industry generally”

“the support for these figures has not been provided; similarly, the Petitioner does not indicate how he calculated the expected number of courses to be given per month or the demand”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“the support for these figures has not been provided”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · ignored
degree · credited
other · discounted
“the Dhanasar framework instructs us to evaluate the impact of the specific proposed endeavor, rather than the field or industry generally”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted

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
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

Petitioner argued the Director applied a heightened standard beyond preponderance of the evidence and imposed novel requirements (e.g., 'economically depressed areas' language); AAO found this argument unsupported, noting the quoted language did not appear in the Director's decision. AAO also clarified it took jurisdiction as an appeal despite petitioner's brief occasionally characterizing the filing as a motion to reconsider. AAO expressly reserved opinion on prong three under Bagamasbad/L-A-C- doctrine of not reaching unnecessary issues.

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
Flores v. Garland
Matter of L-A-C-

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show the specific endeavor's impact would extend beyond his own clients to the industry or economy at a level of national importance, relying on unsupported assumptions.

Transferable lesson

Support projected economic/employment impact with verifiable data tied specifically to the endeavor, not generic industry importance or unsubstantiated business-plan projections.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · geographic_or_shortage_area · field_advancement

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer