dismissedJAN102024_01B52032024-01-10 · 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 proposed to serve as CEO of his own software company in Florida providing cloud-based transport management systems and IT consulting to trucking and logistics operators nationwide.
Field: software development / trucking and logistics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found the Petitioner established he was an advanced degree professional; this was not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his clientele to impact the transportation and logistics industries more broadly”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, sector, or profession in which the individual will work”
“the plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for the revenue and staffing projections depicted”
“The Petitioner's unsupported statements are insufficient to meet his burden of proof”
“The letter therefore is insufficient to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed U.S. work.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“he 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 - recommendation letter · discounted
“The letter therefore is insufficient to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed U.S. work.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · ignored
“the Petitioner's expertise and record of success in previous positions are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”
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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- 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 expressly declined to reach the second and third Dhanasar prongs, finding prong one dispositive; cites INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for this practice.
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