dismissedDEC162025_04B52032025-12-16 · appeal · SCOPS 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 proposes to design, promote, and implement an online-to-offline social networking platform targeting individuals at heightened risk of social isolation—including young adults, seniors, low-income communities, immigrants, and LGBTQ+ individuals—to address mental health impacts of social isolation and foster socioeconomic development in the United States.

Field: business management and software development / social networking platform · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor offers broader implications in his field or substantial positive economic effects for the country that rise to the level of national importance.”

“it is unclear whether the Petitioner and his employees will be physically working in Delaware or operating the business virtually.”

“the Petitioner does not provide sufficient detail regarding the basis of these economic impact projections, nor does he sufficiently explain how the benefits of his endeavor would extend beyond his clients and employees”

“alignment with general national goals, in and of itself, does not necessarily establish that the Petitioner's endeavor rises to the level of national importance.”

“they do not offer sufficient, detailed, and concrete examples of how the Petitioner's endeavor has the potential for broad and measurable implications for the country beyond impacting his company and its clients.”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work. Instead, we focus on 'the specific endeavor that the [petitioner] proposes to undertake.'”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not offer sufficient, detailed, and concrete examples of how the Petitioner's endeavor has the potential for broad and measurable implications for the country beyond impacting his company and its clients.”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner does not provide sufficient detail regarding the basis of these economic impact projections”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the record does not include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor offers broader implications in his field”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“The Petitioner's professional experiences are generally material to Dhanasar's second prong...but they are generally immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

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
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

2,589coded 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

SCOPS had actually found prongs 1 and 2 satisfied (substantial merit and well-positioned) but denied on national importance and prong 3; the AAO conducted de novo review and found national importance (prong 1) not established, making the SCOPS prong-2 finding moot. The AAO also noted a harmless error by SCOPS in referring to the Petitioner as a 'software engineer' rather than a 'business development manager.' The AAO reserved the EB-2 threshold analysis as unnecessary given the dispositive Dhanasar failure.

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer