dismissedJUL262024_01B52032024-07-26 · 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 sought to launch and manage an IT consultancy firm in Delaware offering HCI/UX/UI design consulting to small and medium-sized businesses, along with training for web/interface designers, and planned to expand to Florida and California.
Field: IT consulting / web and interface design · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not offered adequate information and evidence to demonstrate that his proposed endeavor's impact on the field of information technology or web design will be significant enough to reach the level of national importance”
“the record as a whole remains insufficient to show that the benefits of his proposed endeavor, including any training opportunities, will extend beyond his own customers and employees to affect the IT industry more broadly”
“pursuing an endeavor in a STEM field does not automatically establish eligibility for a national interest waiver”
“the Petitioner has not adequately demonstrated that this specific endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or will otherwise have substantial positive economic effects for the United States”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Director found that the Petitioner did not present a viable plan and sufficient evidence”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“pursuing an endeavor in a STEM field does not automatically establish eligibility for a national interest waiver”
AAO decision text - other · ignored
“he does not point to any specific factual or legal errors in the Director's analysis, we are unable to meaningfully address it”
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
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
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 faulted the Petitioner for failing to identify specific factual or legal errors in the Director's decision, declining to meaningfully address his general disagreement; also discussed STEM Policy Manual guidance distinguishing STEM endeavors from classroom teaching/training activities.
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.
- Flores v. Garland
- 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