dismissedAUG262020_03B52032020-08-26 · 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 sought to continue operating and expanding his Florida-based car dealership and automotive repair business, including opening additional auto shop units, as an entrepreneur in the retail automotive sector.
Field: automotive retail / car dealership · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company, business partners, and customers”
“he has not offered sufficient evidence that the areas where... operates and plans to expand are economically depressed”
“he has not shown that his company's future staffing levels, business activity, and related tax revenue stand to provide substantial economic benefits”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work”
AAO decision text - media · 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
- 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
Petitioner submitted general economic-impact literature about immigrant entrepreneurship (not specific to his own endeavor), which AAO treated as supporting only 'substantial merit' but irrelevant to the endeavor-specific national importance inquiry.
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)
- INA 291
- Poursina v. USCIS
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