dismissedSEP052024_04B52032024-09-05 · 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 establish a company delivering specialized civil engineering services using a patent-protected modular swimming pool construction system replicated from a Brazilian model.
Field: civil engineering / swimming pool construction industry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record contained insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor had substantial positive national economic effects, such as by employing a significant population of workers”
“the Petitioner had not shown that providing his expertise to a swimming pool construction company or a U.S. company had national or global implications beyond the impact on his company and its customers”
“Here, the Petitioner has not shown that his endeavor aims to advance STEM technologies and research or has broad implications rather than simply working within a STEM profession”
“The record does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor had substantial positive national economic effects”
AAO decision text - patents · discounted
- recommendation letter · ignored
- media · ignored
Where this case turned
- 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
2,501coded 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 rejected Petitioner's argument that STEM classification alone establishes national importance, distinguishing endeavors that advance STEM technology/research broadly from merely working within a STEM profession; adopted and affirmed Director's decision per Matter of Burbano.
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.
- Chen v. INS
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
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