dismissedSEP242024_05B52032024-09-24 · combined · 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 sought to establish a production/industrial engineering consulting company in Florida advising small and medium-sized businesses on manufacturing optimization, including environmentally friendly lean manufacturing solutions.

Field: production/industrial engineering consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

The record supports the Director's finding that the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional; this was not disputed on motion.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“However, we determined that the Petitioner did not establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance”

“he did not demonstrate how his proposed endeavor would benefit an economically depressed area, substantially affect the national economy, or advance the production engineering field”

“we must focus on the Petitioner's particular venture”

“he provided insufficient evidence to explain his claims or support his work's purported effect on the national economy”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“he did not demonstrate how his proposed endeavor would benefit an economically depressed area, substantially affect the national economy, or advance the production engineering field”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“we do not consider a petitioner's professional experience in determining national importance”
AAO decision text
media · discounted
“while they may demonstrate the field's national importance, we must focus on the Petitioner's particular venture”
AAO decision text
motion resubmission · discounted
“he repeats several of the arguments he made on appeal verbatim”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
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

This is a combined motion decision reviewing a prior AAO appeal dismissal; the AAO reaffirmed its prior national-importance finding as dispositive and expressly declined to address prong 2 (well positioned) or prong 3 (balance of factors), reserving them as in the original decision.

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. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
Matter of L-A-C-
Matter of O-S-G-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer