dismissedAPR152024_01B52032024-04-15 · 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 IT professional with over 18 years of experience, proposed to work as a software developer/entrepreneur by developing and expanding his own IT consulting services firm in the United States.
Field: information technology / software development · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“it is not clear the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will extend benefits beyond his own company and specific clients served”
“the plan does not sufficiently demonstrate how the endeavor will have broader implications, substantial positive economic effects, a significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or how it will enhance societal welfare”
“the "Business Plan" does not substantiate how the endeavor will produce the claimed $7,906,000 in revenue during the first five years of operation or how it will create 39 direct and 163 indirect jobs for U.S. workers”
“the Petitioner does not explain how filling "a gap" will have a broader impact on the field beyond his company and his company's customers”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the plan does not sufficiently demonstrate how the endeavor will have broader implications, substantial positive economic effects, a significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or how it will enhance societal welfare”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“these are general in nature and do not detail how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in particular is of national importance”
AAO decision text - resume experience · ignored
“we do not address the Petitioner's resume, work evidence, and letters of recommendation”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · ignored
“we do not address the Petitioner's resume, work evidence, and letters of recommendation”
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
Petitioner argued the Director committed a 'critical procedural error' by calling his 'Professional Plan' a 'Business Plan'; AAO found the document was in fact titled 'Business Plan' and that any labeling discrepancy was harmless error, citing Matter of O-R-E- on scrivener's errors.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of O-R-E-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers