dismissedAUG112021_07B52032021-08-11 · 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 software developer, proposed to work as a software developer and IT consultant, prospecting for employment with U.S. companies and possibly opening his own software/game development company, later incorporating an IT consulting firm.
Field: software development / IT consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“he does not sufficiently explain or demonstrate how his future software development work stands to rise to the level of national importance within the information technology field”
“the evidence did not sufficiently articulate how his particular proposed endeavors would have national importance beyond his prospective employing organizations and their clients”
“the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from his IT consulting firm would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“he has not shown that he has experienced a record of success within the information technology field; a tangible model or plan for future activities;”
“demonstrated progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; or that potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals are interested in his work”
“the significance of these projects, their economic impacts, and his role therein have not substantiated by the evidence of record”
“the submitted evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that he has achieved a level of past success or progress that would render him well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“A petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“he made no mention of the Petitioner's development of a solution that became a world reference for all large companies with the SAP system”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“these duties reflect commonly performed information technology tasks, they do not establish the asserted significance of the Petitioner's role”
AAO decision text - certification membership · credited
Where this case turned
- 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
- Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
- No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
- Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
2,501coded 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 declined to credit post-filing evidence (business incorporation, CTO role) under the rule that eligibility must be established at time of filing, citing Katigbak, Izummi, and Bardouille. Also notes inconsistency between petitioner's claims and a supporting letter, invoking Matter of Ho's independent-evidence-to-resolve-inconsistencies standard. Decision explicitly frames each prong failure as an independent and alternate basis for dismissal despite declining to reach prong 3.
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)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- INA 291
- Matter of Bardouille
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution