dismissedAUG262024_04B52032024-08-26 · 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 operate and manage his own logistics consulting company in Florida, assisting entrepreneurs and small/medium U.S. businesses in navigating global trade challenges and establishing foreign market presence.
Field: logistics/business consulting for international trade · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question for determining the endeavor's national importance is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“these articles only provide a general overview of the field, benefits of his profession, and the importance ofentrepreneurship and job creation without addressing the Petitioner's specific endeavor”
“the business plan does not offer sufficient details of the basis for these projections or adequately explain how these staffing and financial targets will be realized”
“the Petitioner has not sufficiently provided corroborating evidence ofthe company's economic impact”
“the totality of the evidence presented here does not demonstrate how the proposed endeavor's impact would extend beyond the company's clients and employees to affect the region or nation more broadly”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan does not offer sufficient details of the basis for these projections or adequately explain how these staffing and financial targets will be realized”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“these articles only provide a general overview of the field, benefits of his profession, and the importance ofentrepreneurship and job creation”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the authors do not provide other persuasive details regarding specific impact of the Petitioner's endeavor or his methodology”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not address any processes or methodology directly attributable to the Petitioner that would impact the industry overall”
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
- 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 reserved opinion on underlying exceptional-ability EB-2 eligibility and on prongs 2 and 3, deciding the case solely on prong 1 national importance; explicitly noted each stated reason for dismissal is an independent and alternate basis for the decision.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
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