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 expand his existing Florida-based logistics/transportation LLC into a consulting, advisory, and solutions business for logistics management, offering specialized ground transportation and supply chain services to U.S. clients.
Field: logistics management / ground transportation consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved”
“none of the articles mention the Petitioner or his company, or otherwise speak to the potential prospective impact of his specific proposed endeavor”
“the record does not indicate that the Petitioner's company would employ a substantial number of U.S. workers or otherwise have a significant economic impact”
“the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and its clientele to impact his field”
“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“fall well short of his revenue projections in the business plan”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“none of the articles mention the Petitioner or his company, or otherwise speak to the potential prospective impact of his specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“does not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“does not identify any specific companies or entities that have been or will be serviced by [company] in a manner indicative of broader implications”
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
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
Procedurally unusual: AAO had initially rejected the appeal as untimely and dismissed a subsequent motion, then reopened the matter sua sponte on Service motion under 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(5) after determining the reject notice was erroneous, and allowed the Petitioner's prior brief to stand. AAO also cited an 'expert opinion letter' from a marketing professor discussing induced/indirect job multipliers, which it found conclusory as to national importance rather than under prong 2.
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. 103.5
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
- 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