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 logistics/supply-chain professional, proposed to create a web-based supplier portal connecting buyers and suppliers in the construction industry, offering procurement, sustainability, and business-advisory services to small and medium-sized businesses.
Field: supply chain / logistics and construction industry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the initial petition lacked important details on how the Petitioner plans to build and market the proposed web platform”
“the evidence submitted emphasized the importance of the field or industry in general instead the importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
“the record does not offer any supporting evidence as to how his logistics model or process would have a broad impact in the field”
“the record lacks independent and corroborating evidence to support the basis of the financial and staffing projections in his business plan”
“the evidence does not corroborate the plan's claimed economic benefits to Florida or the United States”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the record lacks independent and corroborating evidence to support the basis of the financial and staffing projections in his business plan”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the author's statements do not meaningfully detail the purpose and nature of the Petitioner's endeavor”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“the evidence submitted emphasized the importance of the field or industry in general instead the importance of the Petitioner's specific 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
- 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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
The AAO rejected the Petitioner's argument that the Director abused discretion under Buletini v. INS by not addressing every piece of evidence individually. It also clarified that a business plan submitted after filing (contrary to Matter of Katigbak reasoning cited by the Director) could still be considered because the endeavor was already contemplated pre-filing, yet ultimately found the plan's economic projections uncorroborated. The decision states each of its findings is an independent and alternate basis for dismissal.
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
- Buletini v. INS
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of Katigbak
- 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