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 build a solar-powered IoT server infrastructure to provide low-cost cloud computing services (email, websites, e-commerce, inventory control, automation) to small businesses, particularly Hispanic-owned businesses in the U.S.
Field: information technology / software development · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work”
“The record does not establish details about the proposed endeavor, such as how many U.S. workers the Petitioner's proposed endeavor may employ, if any”
“the document titled "Proposed Endeavor Statement" presents a new set of material facts that did not exist at the time of filing, which cannot establish eligibility”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“presents a new set of material facts that did not exist at the time of filing, which cannot establish eligibility”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“present a new set of facts that did not exist at the time of filing and, therefore, cannot establish eligibility”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“do not discuss the Petitioner ... or how the proposed endeavor may have national or even global implications”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“This doubt undermines the reliability and sufficiency of the personal statements, and of the remainder of the documents in the record”
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
Notable
AAO placed significant weight on the fact that signatures on the Petitioner's personal statements and 'Proposed Endeavor Statement' appeared fuzzy and pixelated, suggesting they were not handwritten, and used Matter of Ho to cast doubt on the reliability of the entire record based on this and typographical errors. The decision also emphasizes that post-RFE evidence (a 'Proposed Endeavor Statement,' project document, and client letters of interest) constituted impermissible after-the-fact material changes under Izummi/Katigbak.
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution