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 proposed to work as a Computer Systems Engineer and Entrepreneur by establishing his own IT services company providing services such as service monitoring, IT help desk, network access control, and IT training.
Field: Information Technology / Computer Systems Engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and its clientele to impact his field”
“he has not demonstrated that his company's future staffing levels and business activity stand to provide substantial economic benefits in Florida or any other region”
“he has not offered sufficient evidence that his endeavor offers Florida or any other U.S. region a substantial economic benefit through employment levels, tax revenue, or business activity”
“The Petitioner's skills, knowledge, and prior work in his field, however, relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“he has not presented evidence indicating that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from his undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national."”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“The Petitioner does not explain how the recruitment contracts, articles, and other evidence show that his specific proposed endeavor offers broader implications”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“The Petitioner has not offered new evidence or facts on motion to overcome the stated grounds for dismissal in our appellate decision.”
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
This is a combined motion decision following a prior dismissed appeal; the AAO reiterates and expands on the earlier national importance analysis, including a footnote detailing the business plan's specific staffing and revenue projections (4-6 employees, revenues from $399,600 to $1,202,272) to show they were insufficient despite the Petitioner's job-creation argument.
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
- INA 203(b)(2)
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