dismissedJUL152024_09B52032024-07-15 · 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 software developer, proposed to create his own IT/internet marketing company in Wyoming offering web development and SEO services, initially hiring four employees and adding five annually.
Field: software development / IT · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record did not demonstrate that the potential prospective impact of his endeavor would extend beyond his company and future clients”
“the Petitioner's skills, expertise, and abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
“the articles, reports, and letters failed to establish that the Petitioner's specific endeavor has national implications, significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects”
“The business plan lacks evidence showing investment funds from individuals or companies beyond the Petitioner or contractual commitments to work with the proposed company”
“the record does not sufficiently show how the company will pay salaries and other business expenses”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“The business plan lacks evidence showing investment funds from individuals or companies beyond the Petitioner or contractual commitments to work with the proposed company.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the Petitioner's skills, expertise, and abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“Dhanasar requires us to focus on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake, not the importance of the field, industry, or profession”
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 →
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
- INA 203(b)(2)
- 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