dismissedJAN082024_04B52032024-01-08 · appeal · Nebraska 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 manager, proposed to become a self-employed business owner by opening and operating an IT and cybersecurity consulting firm in Illinois, providing IT services to private and public companies.
Field: information technology / cybersecurity consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
“the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his clients and specific companies he plans to work with”
“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
“it does not demonstrate the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the petitioner[']s undertaking would reach the level of 'substantial positive economic effects' contemplated by Dhanasar”
“The Petitioner's proposed endeavor appears to benefit his prospective clients and companies that the Petitioner plans to work with; however, it does not appear to have broader implications”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“it does not demonstrate the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the petitioner['] s undertaking would reach the level of 'substantial positive economic effects' contemplated by Dhanasar”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text - resume experience · ignored
“they are immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong-whether a specific, prospective, proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
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
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 agreed with Director that Petitioner satisfied substantial merit but not national importance, and expressly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 as unnecessary once prong 1 was dispositive; also distinguished experience/qualifications evidence as relevant only to prong 2, not prong 1.
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
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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