dismissedJAN172025_04B52032025-01-17 · 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 come to the United States to serve as CEO of his own startup IT consulting company offering cybersecurity, data privacy, and protection technology services.
Field: IT consulting / cybersecurity · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the economic activity directly resulting from his proposed endeavor would rise to the level of national importance”
“the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these projections”
“The Petitioner has also not established that his proposed endeavor stands to significantly reduce a national labor shortage in the IT field as claimed”
“shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process”
“the evidence submitted by the Petitioner does not establish his proposed endeavor would operate on such a large scale to have a national impact”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these projections”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“The letters speak to the Petitioner's skills and knowledge of identity management services, referring to him as extremely competent and committed”
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
- 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
1,358coded 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
The Director had already conceded substantial merit but found no national importance; AAO agreed only on national importance and expressly declined to reach well-positioned/balance prongs or threshold EB-2 eligibility, resolving the appeal solely on prong one.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 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