dismissedDEC102024_01B52032024-12-10 · 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 industrial designer, sought to create environmentally sustainable construction finishing products and architectural finishes complying with green/LEED standards, and to consult with construction firms on sustainable materials.
Field: industrial design / sustainable construction materials · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified as an individual of exceptional ability (and as advanced degree professional); not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner nonetheless has not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor offers broader implications in the manufacturing, design, and construction field or substantial positive economic effects for the country that rise to the level of national importance.”
“the record lacks sufficient evidence that the Petitioner's existing or future products have been or will be adopted by the industry, made an impact in the field, or had far-reaching implications.”
“The Petitioner, however, does not provide sufficient detail of the basis of her projections or adequately explain how these revenue forecasts will be realized.”
“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or will create a broad impact without providing evidence to corroborate such claims.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“does not provide sufficient detail of the basis of her projections or adequately explain how these revenue forecasts will be realized”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the record does not include adequate corroborating evidence to demonstrate that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor will have broader implications”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the record lacks sufficient evidence that the Petitioner's existing or future products have been or will be adopted by the industry, made an impact in the field, or had far-reaching implications”
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
2,589coded 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 →
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
- 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