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 sought to own and operate a Florida-based business providing business intelligence services (database management, CRM, ERP, RPA, machine learning, and AI/data science tools) to sectors such as food retail, telecommunications, logistics, and the beer industry.
Field: business intelligence / data science · 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
“We are not persuaded by the argument that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance due to the shortage of workers in his field.”
“Moreover, shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process.”
“the job creation estimates, and the projected benefits to economically depressed areas, are based upon projections which are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved”
“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims.”
“he has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and its clientele to impact his field or the U.S. economy more broadly”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“based upon projections which are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national"”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
- other · discounted
“the Petitioner does not offer evidence to support this contention”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“does not elaborate on this projection”
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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
Notable
Petitioner argued the Director applied an improper heightened standard of proof; AAO rejected this, reaffirming preponderance of the evidence governs NIW adjudications. Petitioner's self-authored industry articles were found to demonstrate only his technical knowledge, not the endeavor's national importance.
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.
- 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