dismissedJUN162023_01B52032023-06-16 · 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, a food scientist, proposed to continue working in wheat research, food safety, and education/training in the U.S., alternately describing plans to work for a government entity or pasta-producing business, or to start his own pasta manufacturing company.

Field: food science · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

The Director found, and the AAO did not disturb, that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner's initial description of the proposed endeavor does not provide any other details beyond his intention to work as a food scientist for an unidentified U.S. government entity or pasta producing business”

“the record here does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his potential employers to impact the field of food safety and production more broadly”

“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”

“the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's employment within the field of food safety would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”

“the Petitioner's business plan for [ ] by itself does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“These letters and industry articles do not discuss any particulars of the Petitioner's specific endeavor or its prospective impact rising to the level of national importance.”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
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

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

The Petitioner gave inconsistent descriptions of the endeavor across the RFE, NOID, and appeal responses (government/employer job vs. own pasta company), which the Director flagged as contradictory; the AAO noted the Petitioner filed a one-page appeal statement and waived unaddressed issues under Matter of Zhang.

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

← Back to the case explorer