dismissedSEP212021_01B52032021-09-21 · 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 planned to provide consulting services to construction management and real estate investment companies to improve their financial performance, while also launching his own real estate investment company focused on residential developments.
Field: civil engineering / construction and real estate consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Petitioner qualified as a member of the professions with two master's degrees; exceptional ability claim deemed moot.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“A particular endeavor does not take on national importance simply because it would be part of a major industry”
“The Petitioner establishes the great size of the housing and construction industries, but does not explain how the level of projected job creation from his endeavor is nationally important”
“The Petitioner does not show that his efforts in this area would produce a benefit beyond his own clients.”
“The Petitioner cites no specific source for the job creation estimates”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“The Petitioner does not explain why these revisions did not proportionately affect his projected employment figures.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“which lie well outside the Petitioner's stated focus on residential housing developments”
AAO decision text
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 expressly links the pandemic-era construction job losses cited by Petitioner to undermine his own job-creation claim, noting his endeavor 'will not directly address the public health crisis that caused the job loss.'
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.
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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