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 as engineer and CEO of his own company developing small and medium-sized residential and commercial real estate projects aimed at providing affordable housing in Florida.
Field: civil engineering / real estate development · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“the Petitioner does not adequately explain how these staffing numbers, profit projections, and sale forecasts were calculated”
“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence that the areas in which he has purchased lands or plans to build residential or commercial properties are economically depressed”
“the record is insufficient in demonstrating that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to extend beyond the community in Florida where he would build his housing”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner does not adequately explain how these staffing numbers, profit projections, and sale forecasts were calculated”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“These letters do not address how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor's specific impact or methodology that differs from or improve upon those already available”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“The Petitioner does not submit any new evidence with the appeal but resubmits documents that are already on record”
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
- 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
Notable
The Petitioner argued the Director imposed 'novel' evidentiary requirements and denied him an opportunity to submit additional evidence, but the AAO rejected this, noting he had responded to an RFE and failed to identify any deviation from the preponderance standard. The AAO explicitly dismissed on prong 1 alone as an independent and alternate basis, declining to reach prongs 2 and 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.
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of E-M-
- 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