dismissedAUG102022_02B52032022-08-10 · 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 general and operations manager, initially proposed to advise U.S. companies on business operations, then modified her endeavor to running/promoting a freight transportation and logistics start-up company she co-founded as vice president and CEO.
Field: general and operations management / freight transportation and logistics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The [P]etitioner has not established that her proposed work has implications beyond her current employer”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work”
“None of the general industry reports and articles refer to the Petitioner, the company she co-founded, or the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake”
“the record does not establish with specific data how its operations, among all freight transportation operations, rises to the level of having national or global implications”
“The business plan in the record does not elaborate with any specific information about the number or types of workers”
“the record does not establish that the company's only identified workplace, which matches the Petitioner's home residential address, is in an economically depressed area”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“The business plan in the record does not elaborate with any specific information about the number or types of workers”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“None of the general industry reports and articles refer to the Petitioner, the company she co-founded, or the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake”
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
- 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 rejected a COVID-19 pandemic-based national importance argument as a post-filing 'new set of facts' under Matter of Katigbak, since the petition predated the pandemic. Also noted a discrepancy: company registered with Florida in February 2019, before the April 2019 filing, despite business plan omitting founding date.
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
- The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
- The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
- The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
- The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod