dismissedAUG152017_03B52032017-08-15 · 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 sought to continue serving as founder and CEO of a consumer electronics company that purchases products from U.S. distributors and resells them domestically and internationally.
Field: consumer electronics retail/distribution · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner's response does not offer sufficient evidence demonstrating that his proposed endeavor is of national importance.”
“The Petitioner did not provide an updated business plan or any updated projections for future growth and hiring”
“nor did he ofler evidence that his work stands to have positive economic effects that reach beyond to affect the regional or national economy more broadly.”
“he did not provide comparative statistics, industry data, or other economic metrics indicating that use of these service providers at these levels will result in significant benefits”
“As the Petitioner has not established that his endeavor's prospective impact supports a finding of national importance, he has not met the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
“we find that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor of serving as CEO of and Accordingly, he satisfies the second prong of the Dhanasar framework.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“The Petitioner did not offer an updated business plan or any updated projections for future growth and hiring”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“he did not provide comparative statistics, industry data, or other economic metrics indicating that use of these service providers at these levels will result in significant benefits”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · credited
- awards · credited
- degree · credited
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground
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 found prong 2 satisfied (entrepreneurial success, awards, colleague letters) but dismissed solely on prong 1 national importance failure, declining to reach prong 3 balancing analysis.
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.
- INA 203(b)(2)
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