dismissedJUN082023_04B52032023-06-08 · 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 an entrepreneur assisting American companies targeting Latin America, later shifting on appeal to opening and operating a U.S. business/education company in digital marketing training.
Field: digital marketing / entrepreneurship · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“This is of national importance to the U.S. because there is a severe shortage of professionals in my field.”
“We note here the Petitioner's claim of a professional shortage does not render his proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework.”
“In fact, the Petitioner developed the business plan after the Director issued the RFE.”
“Accordinglf' we will not consider the Petitioner's materially changed proposed endeavor of opening and operating”
“the record does not show through supporting documentation how his specific entrepreneurial services stand to sufficiently extend beyond his prospective clients”
“the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his initial proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“such shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process”
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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- 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 rejected consideration of a materially changed endeavor (new business plan for a company developed only after the RFE was issued), applying the Izummi/Bardouille rule against post-filing facts; dismissal explicitly noted as resting on independent and alternate bases.
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. 103.3
- Matter of Bardouille
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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