dismissedJUL252024_01B52032024-07-25 · combined · 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 proposed to own and operate a multimodal transportation and logistics company offering freight management, supply chain, customs, and last-mile delivery services, initially based in New York and later changed to Pennsylvania.
Field: multimodal transportation / logistics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established
“the record appears to indicate this change was made primarily for the purposes of strengthening the Petitioner's national importance claim, and not in response to outside factors”
“the Director did review the revised business plan and concluded that it did not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's endeavor”
“the change in the area of intended operations reflects a material change to the Petitioner's eligibility under the first prong of Dhanasar, as the location is relevant to the substantial positive economic effects”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established
“the recommendation letters do not establish how his past successes working in various business development positions directly relate to his entrepreneurial endeavor of owning and operating his own logistics company”
“the letter of intent to invest submitted on motion was executed more than three weeks after the petition was denied 4 and is a non-binding agreement contingent on the investor's ability to secure financing”
“the Petitioner did not explain how he would continue to direct the operations of his business after transferring ownership to his investor”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established
“the endeavor did not lead to job creation sufficient to waive the interest inherent in the labor certification process, and the endeavor primarily benefited the Petitioner and his customers rather than the United States”
“While it may be impractical for the Petitioner to obtain a labor certification, that is only one consideration under Dhanasar's third prong, and on balance the Petitioner has not shown it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Director did review the revised business plan and concluded that it did not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's endeavor”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the recommendation letters do not establish how his past successes working in various business development positions directly relate to his entrepreneurial endeavor”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“the letter of intent to invest submitted on motion was executed more than three weeks after the petition was denied and is a non-binding agreement”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“a petitioner must establish eligibility for a requested benefit at the time of filing”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
- Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
- Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
- Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground
- Urgency not established · p3 — no reason shown why the benefit cannot wait for labour certification
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
The appeal concerned a combined motion to reopen/reconsider, not a direct denial appeal. AAO found the petitioner's change of business location from New York to Pennsylvania constituted an impermissible material change under Matter of Katigbak/Izummi, and that this change appeared designed to bolster the national importance claim rather than reflect genuine market research.
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(12)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Bardouille
- Matter of Coelho
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
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