dismissedJUN042024_09B52032024-06-04 · 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 proposed to operate an e-commerce company offering dropshipping, wholesale arbitrage, private labeling, and digital consultancy services to small businesses, focused on kitchen and home goods.
Field: e-commerce/dropshipping consultancy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“it does not provide insight into the Petitioner's plan to operate an e-commerce consultancy company or show how this specific endeavor would have a potential prospective impact of national importance.”
“The plan does not, however, provide an objective basis for these projections, nor are the numbers corroborated by probative evidence”
“The expert opinion letter does not clarify how the Petitioner's company would impact or demonstrate its own importance to the economy or industry within such a massive market.”
“he has not shown that his business stands to provide substantial economic benefits to any particular locality or to the United States overall.”
“the expert opinion letter's assertions of the potential of the Petitioner to provide innovative solutions that could support multiple endeavors in the United States is vague”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- other · discounted
“it does not provide insight into the Petitioner's plan to operate an e-commerce consultancy company”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not sufficiently demonstrate the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“The plan does not, however, provide an objective basis for these projections, nor are the numbers corroborated by probative evidence”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the record does not include documentation supporting those statements.”
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
- 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 explicitly clarifies that experience/performance evidence (recommendation letters) relates to prong 2, not prong 1, even though petitioner offered it to support national importance.
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