dismissedFEB272018_01B52032018-02-27 · motion_reopen · 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 continue as CEO and 91% owner of a company he founded that purchases personal electronics products from U.S. distributors and resells them to national and international customers.

Field: consumer electronics import/export and wholesale distribution · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the documentation submitted does not explain how these metrics demonstrate that his endeavor will offer substantial economic benefits to the region in which the business is located or to the nation”

“we find that the proposed endeavor in this case will not sutticiently extend beyond to affect the regional or national economy more broadly”

“the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor is of national importance under the first prong of the Dhanasar fi·amework”

AAO decision text

Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established

“as the Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor(s) as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver and further discussion of the balancing factors under the third prong would serve no meaningful purpose”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“the documentation submitted does not explain how these metrics demonstrate that his endeavor will offer substantial economic benefits to the region”
AAO decision text
contract revenue · discounted
“the Petitioner did not provide sutlicient information explaining ... how the company's anticipated profit margins ... represent a substantial economic benefit”
AAO decision text
motion resubmission · discounted
“Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does not constitute 'new facts.'”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground

2,501coded 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

Petitioner argued the third prong of Dhanasar was intended to 'expand the reach of the national interest waiver, especially for entrepreneurs,' but the AAO declined to reach that argument because prong one was dispositive. The motion largely turned on a newly submitted business plan with revenue/hiring projections that the AAO found insufficiently tied to regional or national economic impact, echoing its earlier appellate decision in the same matter.

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. 103.5(a)(2)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer