dismissedJUN042024_02B52032024-06-04 · 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 proposed to work as CEO and entrepreneur of his own company providing construction and electrical equipment wholesaling services, including household electrical installations, repairs, house automation, and IoT appliance integration, in Massachusetts.
Field: construction and electrical equipment wholesaling business · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
“we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his clients and companies he elects to work with to enhance societal welfare on a broader scale”
“the record does not support the Petitioner's general assertions with corroborating evidence demonstrating the plausibility of those assertions”
“Without evidence projecting U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, it is insufficient to assert that the benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy...would rise to the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“they are misplaced in the context of the first Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the record does not support the Petitioner's general assertions with corroborating evidence demonstrating the plausibility of those assertions”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · ignored
- other · discounted
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
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
- 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
The Director had found substantial merit and prong 2 (well-positioned) satisfied, but AAO reversed on national importance alone as dispositive, declining to reach prongs 2 and 3 despite the Director's favorable findings there.
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 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