dismissedAPR252024_10B52032024-04-25 · 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 proposed to provide development, consulting, and training services in international business administration and management, focused on supply chain management, logistics, and international trade, through his own consulting company.

Field: international business/supply chain management and logistics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the relevant question for determining the endeavor's national importance is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”

“The Petitioner also has not offered other corroborating evidence of the company's economic impact aside from claims made in the business plan or his statements.”

“it does not sufficiently demonstrate the company's financial or staffing projections for us to determine how the Petitioner's business will have "substantial positive economic effects"”

“The evaluator does not provide any other persuasive details regarding specific impact of the Petitioner's endeavor or his methodology in supply chain management or international trade.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“the advisory opinion is of little probative value as the evaluator does not provide his credentials to demonstrate his expertise in the field of the Petitioner's endeavor”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“it does not sufficiently demonstrate the company's financial or staffing projections for us to determine how the Petitioner's business will have "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text
media · discounted
“The articles and publications on record do not address the Petitioner's specific endeavor and its impact”
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
Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact

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 AAO relies on a 'presumption of regularity' doctrine to reject the Petitioner's argument that the Director used generic RFE/decision language and failed to specifically address each piece of evidence. It also draws an explicit analogy to Dhanasar's own classroom-teacher hypothetical to explain why benefits confined to clients/employees do not extend broadly enough to be nationally important. The AAO discounts the sole expert letter partly because its author is from a credential-evaluation firm rather than a subject-matter expert in supply chain/logistics.

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 L-A-C-

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show the endeavor's impact extended beyond his company's own clients/employees to the region or nation, per Dhanasar's classroom-teacher analogy.

Transferable lesson

Support national importance with concrete, corroborated projections (jobs, revenue, regional/national reach) tied specifically to the endeavor, not general industry importance or credential-focused letters.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

economic_growth_generic · field_advancement

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer