dismissedJUL132023_02B52032023-07-13 · 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, a graphic designer, sought to open and operate his own U.S. graphic design/interior design studio, providing design services to businesses and clients while hiring staff.
Field: graphic design · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his specific, proposed endeavor of providing his particular graphic design services”
“the letter does not explain how the Petitioner's graphic design services, through his business located in an undisclosed area in Florida, have broader implications for our country”
“the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his business plan's claimed revenue and employment projections, even if credible, have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects”
“the record does not show through supporting documentation how his graphic design services stand to sufficiently extend beyond his prospective clients, to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more broadly”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner did not demonstrate that such future staffing levels would provide substantial economic benefits to Florida or the region or U.S. economy more broadly”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters discuss the impact of the Petitioner's work to their own experiences rather than the required broad impact to the graphic design industry”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the Petitioner's arguments and evidence relate more to the substantial merit aspect of the proposed endeavor rather than the national importance part”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the business plan does not establish the benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
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
AAO expressly declined to remand for threshold EB-2 classification determination since the sole basis for denial was the NIW eligibility, and only reached prong 1, treating the failure as 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
- 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