dismissedFEB082024_06B52032024-02-08 · appeal · Texas 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, owner and VP of sales/logistics of a U.S. company importing frozen fruit from Mexico, sought to continue and grow his frozen fruit distribution business, projecting increased sales, direct and indirect job creation, and support for U.S. food supply chains.

Field: frozen fruit import/distribution and sales logistics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor”

“The Petitioner must demonstrate, however, the national importance of his specific, proposed endeavor rather than the national importance of frozen fruit distribution.”

“Simply stating that his work would support an important industry is not sufficient to meet the "national importance" requirement under the Dhanasar framework.”

“The record, similarly, lacks supporting evidence demonstrating that the projected revenues in the Updated Impact Analysis present a realistic basis for employment creation predictions.”

“he does not sufficiently explain the basis for his conclusions regarding the positive economic impact of the proposed endeavor”

“While we acknowledge that there is an ongoing demand in the field of frozen fruit distribution for persons who possess the Petitioner's skills, training, and experience, neither the Petitioner nor the individuals who provided letters in support of the petition sufficiently explain how the Petitioner's work ... would meaningfully impact this demand”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not address the national importance of his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“does not explain how the company's projected wholesale revenues, costs of goods sold, and expenses were calculated”
AAO decision text
contract revenue · discounted
“they do not address the national importance of his proposed endeavor”
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
Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
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

Unusual procedural history: AAO first dismissed the appeal as moot due to a later, approved EB-2 petition, then reopened sua sponte after the Petitioner sued in federal district court; Petitioner's argument that the later petition's approval should retroactively validate this one (to secure an earlier priority date) was rejected because each petition is adjudicated independently and eligibility must exist 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. 103.3
Matter of Bardouille
Matter of Caron Int'l
Matter of D-R-
Matter of Izummi
Matter of Katigbak
Matter of L-A-C-
Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer