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 serve as the CEO of his own IT consulting business in the United States.
Field: IT consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner did not provide evidence that his specific proposed endeavor would result in substantial U.S. economic impact or job creation or that it would broadly enhance societal welfare”
“he did not meet the national importance requirement of the first prong of Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“did not provide evidence that his specific proposed endeavor would result in substantial U.S. economic impact”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“does not indicate that a petitioner qualifies for the waiver by virtue of being an entrepreneur”
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
Notable
AAO adopted and affirmed the Director's decision under Matter of Burbano rather than independently re-analyzing the evidence, faulting the Petitioner for merely citing new USCIS entrepreneur guidance (Policy Manual F.5(D)(4)) without tying it to national importance rather than prong 2 well-positioned factors.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Chen v. INS
- Matter of L-A-C-
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to show his specific IT consulting endeavor, as opposed to entrepreneurship generally, had national importance; appeal repeated policy manual categories without tying evidence to his endeavor's impact.
Entrepreneur petitioners must connect concrete, corroborated evidence to their specific venture's scale of impact, not merely cite entrepreneurship guidance or general credentials.
vague
economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic
person_focused
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