dismissedAPR262023_04B52032023-04-26 · 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 system engineer with a DevOps background, proposed to own and operate a tech-educational company using augmented and virtual reality technology to help students, especially in public schools, learn natural sciences.
Field: systems engineering / DevOps / tech-educational company · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of her specific, proposed endeavor of owning and operating a tech-educational company rather than the importance of STEM, labor shortages, or immigration”
“the business plan contains vague, general assertions without showing how her owning and operating stand to sufficiently extend beyond her prospective students”
“The business plan does not assert any potential job creation or revenues.”
“the record does not reflect any benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“The business plan does not offer specific information demonstrating the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
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
- 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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
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 distinguishes STEM field importance from classroom teaching activities analogy from Dhanasar itself, and frames the dismissal as resting on multiple independent alternate grounds despite only reaching prong 1.
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-
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