dismissedJUL182024_08B52032024-07-18 · 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, an electronic and civil engineer, proposed to serve as CEO of a new information technology consulting company he would found in California, providing IT consulting services to small and medium-sized U.S. businesses.
Field: information technology consulting (electronic and civil engineering background) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“In evaluating national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“The evidence does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's specific undertaking stands to have an impact beyond the organization and clients he would serve”
“the plan does not provide sufficient detail of the basis for these projections, or adequately explain how these sales and staffing targets will be realized”
“he has not demonstrated how a business that expects to hire 15 employees and generate $6.987 million over five years will have substantial positive economic effects”
“The letters of recommendation containing testimonials of the services the Petitioner performed do not describe how the benefits they have received connect to broader implications”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the opinion focuses on the importance of the industry and how the Petitioner's experience ... would be beneficial to the United States”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the plan does not provide sufficient detail of the basis for these projections, or adequately explain how these sales and staffing targets will be realized”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“General claims about the growth of the information technology services industry and the importance of SMEs ... do not help establish that the Petitioner's specific endeavor has the potential to impact”
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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- 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 →
Notable
AAO rejected Petitioner's attempt to analogize his business location to a HUBZone/economically depressed area, finding the comparison unsupported and the intention 'meritorious' but uncorroborated.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Caron Int'l
- Matter of D-R-
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)
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