dismissedJUL182024_03B52032024-07-18 · appeal · Nebraska 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 sought to found a company providing bespoke telecommunications and edge cloud computing consulting services and tailored client solutions.
Field: information technology and telecommunications / edge cloud computing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; AAO noted a contradictory statement by the Director but treated it as harmless error.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate the bespoke consulting services and tailored solutions unique to each client that he intends to provide through his company would extend beyond his specific clientele”
“he does not sufficiently explain or demonstrate how the specific work he proposes to undertake offers original innovations to advance, or otherwise has wider implications in, the telecommunications and cloud computing fields”
“the record is insufficient to establish his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects”
“the projections, while positive, do not sufficiently establish substantial positive economic effects when compared to the overall industry”
“our focus is on the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake rather than the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“he does not account for the cost of these jobs in his financial forecast and does not otherwise provide sufficient corroborating evidence”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“reproduced from the Petitioner's executive plan a description of the proposed endeavor and generally discussed the importance of the industries”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“submitted several articles generally describing the importance and impact of the telecommunications and cloud computing industries”
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 used footnoted internet research citing competitor companies' websites (Cisco, Microsoft, T-Mobile) to show the Petitioner's services were not differentiated from existing industry offerings.
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-
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