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 logistician, proposed to operate a logistics consulting business headquartered in a Pennsylvania metro area providing supply-chain optimization services to companies across various industries, and separately to develop an app coordinating food deliveries and household-chore scheduling.
Field: logistics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; this was not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong”
“neither the business plan nor the remainder of the record consistently establish the location in which the proposed endeavor would operate”
“cast doubt on the veracity ofthe business plan, specifically its financial information, undermining the reliability and sufficiency of the business plan and the totality of the record more generally”
“neither the letters nor the remainder of the record objectively substantiate the reasons for anticipating those generalized returns on investment”
“the logistics consulting services company would provide consulting services similar to other, typical logistics consulting services companies with limited effect”
“the app the Petitioner proposes to develop appears to be duplicative of other existing apps that coordinate food deliveries and schedule independent contractors”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“cast doubt on the veracity ofthe business plan, specifically its financial information, undermining the reliability and sufficiency of the business plan”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“neither the letters nor the remainder of the record objectively substantiate the reasons for anticipating those generalized returns on investment”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the app the Petitioner proposes to develop appears to be duplicative of other existing apps”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
The AAO devoted significant analysis to internal inconsistencies in the business plan (conflicting wage figures and job titles between the Form I-140 and the business plan, and a mismatched RIMS II multiplier table citing Florida instead of Pennsylvania/New York), treating these discrepancies as undermining the reliability of all financial evidence under Matter of Ho, even though the Director's denial was framed primarily around location and economic-effect uncertainty.
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
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
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