dismissedAPR192021_09B52032021-04-19 · 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 sought to expand two Florida companies he founded, one providing technical/consulting services to the architecture and construction industry and one focused on real estate investment and development.
Field: real estate investment and construction/architecture consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his companies, business partnerships, and clientele to impact his field or the U.S. real estate industry more broadly”
“he has not shown that his two companies' future staffing levels and business activity stand to provide substantial economic benefits in Florida or the United States”
“the Petitioner, however, does not adequately explain how these revenue forecasts were calculated”
“he has not offered sufficient evidence that the area where his companies will operate is economically depressed”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“he does not adequately explain how these revenue forecasts were calculated”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“The Petitioner's experience in his field relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
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
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 explicitly frames its national-importance finding as an independent and alternate basis, though it declines to reach prongs 2 and 3 on the merits.
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.
- Poursina v. USCIS
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