dismissedJUL072023_02B52032023-07-07 · 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, a senior software developer, sought to provide software development services to U.S. businesses through his own company, having already served three clients and planning to develop and market additional software solutions.

Field: software development · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we determined that the Petitioner had not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong”

“We concluded the Petitioner's statements and his clients' letters did not collectively show wider benefits at a level commensurate with national importance.”

“the Petitioner did not provide sufficient specific details as to how his proposed endeavor would have national importance in these areas, rather than more limited effects such as benefit to his company's individual clients.”

“We concluded that general assertions of this kind do not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor.”

“We concluded the Petitioner's forecast that his company would have ten employees within its first five years of operation was not economically significant within the Dhanasar national importance framework.”

“We also found mathematical errors and ambiguous data within the Petitioner's indirect job creation estimates in the business plan”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionedestablished

“We concluded he had met the requirements under Dhanasar's second prong”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“the authors primarily described the industry in which the Petitioner intends to work, without establishing how the Petitioner's work, in particular, would have national importance”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“was not economically significant within the Dhanasar national importance framework”
AAO decision text
motion resubmission · discounted
“a motion to reconsider is not a process by which the party may submit in essence, the same brief and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior decision”
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
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

This is a motion to reconsider following a prior AAO appellate dismissal (ID# 23659641); the AAO declined to conduct de novo review, limiting itself to whether the prior decision misapplied law or policy, and reaffirmed its earlier prong-one national importance analysis without re-examining the record de novo.

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)(ii)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
Matter of Ho
Matter of L-A-C-
Matter of O-S-G-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer