dismissedAPR242024_06B52032024-04-24 · 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, an architect, proposed to continue working on large-scale industrial, commercial, infrastructure, and residential projects while incorporating sustainable architecture techniques and offering trainings in sustainable/green building methods.
Field: architecture (sustainable design) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on a bachelor's equivalent plus five years progressive experience; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work”
“The Petitioner's claims here, and the evidence in support them, help establish only the importance of the field of sustainable architecture, rather than the importance of the Petitioner's specific, proposed endeavor.”
“neither the Petitioner's original professional plan nor the updated professional plan submitted in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) describe specific plans to establish a company or discuss specific job creation estimates”
“The Petitioner does not explain how her architectural services differ from those already available on the market, offer improvements or new approaches that are replicable throughout the field”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the record does not contain evidence to support the claim...that the Petitioner has "revolutionized the industry with her methods"”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“neither the Petitioner's original professional plan nor the updated professional plan...describe specific plans to establish a company or discuss specific job creation estimates”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“these general, conclusory statements are made without sufficient information or evidence to support them”
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
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 noted the Petitioner's job-creation claim (13 jobs in 5 years) 'appears to have been made for the first time on appeal' and lacked evidentiary basis in the professional plans submitted below.
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)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
- The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
- The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
- The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
- The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod