dismissedJAN252024_06B52032024-01-25 · 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 sought to operate a company providing nationwide long-distance freight hauling and transportation services based in Florida, with plans to hire and expand her fleet over ten years.
Field: long-distance freight hauling and transportation services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
“the Petitioner has not shown her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her employees and her company's customers to enhance societal welfare on a broader scale”
“she has not presented evidence indicating that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from her undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“The business plan lacks financial forecasts or similar types of projections.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“these relate to the second Dhanasar prong... They do not establish what impact her endeavor will have.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“these relate to the second Dhanasar prong, which is concerned with the Petitioner's ability to advance her endeavor.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- 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
2,501coded 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 failed to address prong 2, but AAO found this harmless error since prong 1 failure alone was dispositive; AAO explicitly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3.
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
- 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