dismissedFEB282024_03B52032024-02-28 · 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, an IT specialist and entrepreneur, proposed to work as CEO of her own company in Florida, offering software to help businesses manage inputs/outputs and improve operational efficiency.
Field: information technology / software · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not show through supporting documentation how her business stands to sufficiently extend beyond prospective clients, to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more broadly”
“the alleged shortage of occupations or occupational skills does not render her proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework”
“the Petitioner did not establish that the benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
“the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of her specific, proposed endeavor of owning and operating her company rather than the importance of the overall topics, fields, or industries”
“the letter does not explain how they have broader implications for our country”
“the Petitioner did not demonstrate that such future staffing levels would provide substantial economic benefits to the ... Florida region or U.S. economy more broadly”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner did not establish that the benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letter does not explain how they have broader implications for our country”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
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
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- 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 rejected a 'tech shortage'/STEM occupational-shortage argument, noting such shortages are addressed via labor certification, not NIW national importance; also explicitly distinguished substantial merit (conceded) from national importance (failed).
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
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
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