dismissedDEC072023_07B52032023-12-07 · 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, an IT developer, proposed to continue developing and providing his property-management software platform to small and medium vacation rental property management companies in the U.S., partnering with services like Airbnb and Booking.com.

Field: software development / information technology (property rental management software) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance element of Dhanasar 's first prong”

“the opinions lack objectivity and do not provide the details or measurements used to support their assertions”

“none of these reports or documents explain how the Petitioner's specific endeavor of providing software technology to small and medium sized rental property management companies is of national importance”

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation”

“his claims that his ability to assist U.S. firms wishing to engage in offshore software development operations is not congruent or consistent with his stated endeavor”

“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his clients to impact the information technology or tourism industries more broadly”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“the opinions lack objectivity and do not provide the details or measurements used to support their assertions”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“none of these reports or documents explain how the Petitioner's specific endeavor... is of national importance”
AAO decision text
certification membership · discounted
“neither his membership nor his continued educational pursuits establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“his expertise and record of success in previous positions are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text
contract revenue · discounted

Where this case turned

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
Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

2,501coded 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 flagged in a footnote that a supporting company letter appeared to be from the Petitioner's own registered company (per public BBB records), suggesting a lack of independence in the evidence, though it stated its decision did not rest on this observation; it advised future petitions to address this business relationship.

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)
INA 203(b)(2)
Matter of Ho
Matter of L-A-C-
Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer