dismissedDEC142023_01B52032023-12-14 · appeal · Nebraska 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 establish and operate a U.S.-based used car retail and e-store franchise business targeting low-income customers.

Field: used car retail / e-commerce entrepreneurship · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The letter from Dr. V-L- does not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed work operating a used car dealership offers broader implications in his field”

“we conclude the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and its clientele to impact his field, the automotive retail industry, or the U.S. economy more broadly”

“he has not offered sufficient evidence that his endeavor offers Texas, Florida, or the United States a substantial economic benefit through employment levels, tax revenue, or business activity”

“We are not persuaded by the argument that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance due to the shortage of professionals in his field”

“he did not elaborate on these projections or provide evidence supporting the need for these additional employees”

“he did not adequately explain how these sales forecasts were calculated”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“he did not elaborate on these projections or provide evidence supporting the need for these additional employees”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“his skills, knowledge, and prior work in his field, however, relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the issue here is not the national importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text
contract revenue · discounted
“he has not offered sufficient evidence that his endeavor offers Texas, Florida, or the United States a substantial economic benefit”
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
Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

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

Record contained an unresolved inconsistency (business plan listed incorporation in both Texas and Florida with no corroborating evidence), and the Petitioner's RFE response submitted a differently-named company formed after the filing date, which the AAO noted was not relevant to eligibility at time of filing.

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. 103.2(b)(1)
8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(12)
Matter of Ho
Matter of L-A-C-
Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer