dismissedDEC172025_05B52032025-12-17 · appeal
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 a software development company in the United States where he would serve as software development and application project manager, drawing on his experience running two companies in China on smart city, smart village, and agricultural technology projects.
Field: software development / project management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the evidence does "not sufficiently show how [the endeavor will] extend beyond the immediate vicinity of the persons or entities utilizing [the Petitioner's services and products.]"”
“he does not describe in sufficient detail for us to evaluate, the number of jobs he proposes to create, the caliber of any jobs he proposes to create or what the economic impact from those jobs might be”
“because none of the writers are able to knowingly speak to the impacts of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in the United States, they are insufficient to establish his endeavor's national importance, by a preponderance”
“establishing a software development and application business in the United States, which is not sufficiently defined, cannot alone establish national importance under our policy guidance and Dhanasar”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“none of the writers are able to knowingly speak to the impacts of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in the United States”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“establishing a software development and application business in the United States, which is not sufficiently defined, cannot alone establish national importance”
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
- Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
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
AAO credited the reference letters as establishing substantial merit but found they addressed only past accomplishments in China, not prospective U.S. impact, and expressly reserved both the exceptional-ability classification question and Dhanasar prongs 2 and 3 under INS v. Bagamasbad.
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)
- Flores v. Garland
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
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