dismissedSEP202024_01B52032024-09-20 · appeal · Nebraska 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, an engineer and business owner, sought to continue operating a U.S. company improving energy efficiency and safety of residential and commercial buildings through HVAC-related services.
Field: power engineering / HVAC and energy efficiency · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“he does not sufficiently explain or demonstrate how the specific services he proposes to provide offer original innovations to advance, or otherwise have national or global implications”
“the Petitioner's general assertions regarding the contributions his services will make to the national economy through job growth... are not supported by corroborating evidence”
“These submissions generally speak to the Petitioner's character and professional experience and/or the overall importance of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems”
“even if we were to conclude that the financial projections in the business plan regarding revenue growth and job creation are well founded, which we do not”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner did not establish that his endeavor's potential to employ U.S. workers is significant”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“These submissions generally speak to the Petitioner's character and professional experience and/or the overall importance of HVAC systems”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“generally speak to... the overall impact the HVAC industry has on the economy of the United States”
AAO decision text - degree · ignored
“did not submit copies of the original documents in Russian to support the Director's determination”
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
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 expressly declined to reach the underlying advanced-degree eligibility issue (missing original Russian diploma) and prong 3, resolving the appeal solely on prong 1 national importance.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 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