dismissedAUG262024_13B52032024-08-26 · 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 start his own IT consultancy company in Florida providing services to internet service providers, enabling secure, expandable, value-added voice, video, and data services.
Field: information technology consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the matter here is not whether these initiatives, as well as the topics of internet access and network improvement or similarly related subjects, are nationally important”
“the Petitioner has not shown that his endeavor aims to advance STEM technologies and research or has broad implications rather than providing his limited professional services”
“the Petitioner did not present any supporting evidence, corroborating the assertions and figures”
“the record does not demonstrate that, beyond the limited benefits provided to its prospective clients and employees, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has broader implications”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner did not present any supporting evidence, corroborating the assertions and figures”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the matter here is not whether these initiatives...are nationally important”
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
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 explicitly declined to reach the second and third Dhanasar prongs or the underlying EB-2 classification eligibility, citing Bagamashad and Matter of L-A-C- for the principle that agencies need not make advisory findings on unnecessary issues; also noted the dismissal is on each independent basis stated.
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