dismissedFEB202024_02B52032024-02-20 · 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 sought to develop and expand his own IT consulting company in Florida providing services such as software engineering, digital transformation, cloud migration, and application performance monitoring to small- and medium-sized businesses, including in HUBZone areas.

Field: computer systems consulting / IT · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“benefits that are isolated to a single institution or locality in the United States might be so attenuated at the national level as to preclude a finding that the proposed endeavor has national importance.”

“his findings stem from the significance of the IT field generally, and particularly note the importance of e-commerce, cyber security”

“a national shortage of IT professionals is not, in and of itself: sufficient to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's endeavor.”

“General assertions about his company's potential impact are not supported in the record by corroborating evidence of the plausibility of those assertions”

“The Petitioner has not shown how his own business will impact the economy or the industry at a level commensurate with national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“General assertions about his company's potential impact are not supported in the record by corroborating evidence of the plausibility of those assertions”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“the Petitioner's experience, however, is not relevant to the first part of the Dhanasar framework, but to the second”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's experience, however, is not relevant to the first part of the Dhanasar framework, but to the second”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“These materials do not specifically describe the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or its potential impact.”
AAO decision text
contract revenue · discounted
“the growth, revenue, and hiring projections provided in the business plan are not accompanied by an explanation of the sources used for those calculations.”
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
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

AAO explicitly noted it reviewed all evidence though not discussing each piece individually (footnote 2), and expressly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 as unnecessary given dispositive prong 1 failure, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the proposition that agencies need not make advisory findings.

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
Matter of E-M-
Matter of L-A-C-
Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer