dismissedJUL252024_04B52032024-07-25 · 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 urban development planner with experience leading regeneration projects in the UK, proposed to work in the United States as a consultant providing support to real estate owners and developers on urban renewal projects.
Field: urban development planning / regeneration · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified as advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“the letters are dated in October and November 2023, subsequent to the filing date of the instant petition in July 2022”
“the submitted letters generally describe interest in working with the Petitioner in the United States on urban renewal projects without providing sufficient details”
“the record does not contain sufficient evidence to show the overall impact of the Petitioner's role”
“the report indicates that the majority of the projects are still in the development stages”
“the record lacks details demonstrating a specific business model utilized by the Petitioner for past projects or an intended model for his proposed endeavor”
“the record does not reflect a specific model or plan for the Petitioner's future activities or sufficient interest from potential customers”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the submitted letters generally describe interest ... without providing sufficient details, such as information about proposed projects, responsibilities, dates, or potential wages”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the record lacks details demonstrating a specific business model utilized by the Petitioner for past projects or an intended model”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the report indicates that the majority of the projects are still in the development stages; the job creation and financial value estimates are based on projections over 25 years”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the record does not contain sufficient evidence to show the overall impact of the Petitioner's role”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
- Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
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 rejected letters submitted on appeal because they were dated after the petition filing date (post-filing eligibility rule), applying Matter of Katigbak's prohibition on speculative future eligibility.
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
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