dismissedJAN262024_07B52032024-01-26 · motion_reconsider · 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 operate his own business offering graphic and interior design services to clients through his company in Florida.
Field: graphic design · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner had not shown that his proposed endeavor to offer graphic design services through stands to sufficiently extend beyond his prospective clients to impact his industry”
“the job creation and revenue projections included therein are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how those projections will be realized”
“the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor of providing his particular graphic design services through rather than the importance of graphic designers and related fields and industries”
“he has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and its clientele to impact his industry, the field of graphic design, the U.S. economy”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the job creation and revenue projections included therein are not supported by details showing their basis”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“does not demonstrate how the Petitioner's specific endeavor rises to a level of national importance”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“insufficient to demonstrate the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
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
- 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
Petitioner attempted to analogize his case directly to the facts of Matter of Dhanasar itself, arguing he submitted comparable evidence (one expert letter and probative research); AAO rejected the analogy as factually distinguishable. Petitioner also unsuccessfully argued the AAO applied a heightened evidentiary standard beyond preponderance of the evidence.
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. 103.5(a)(1)(i)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
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