dismissedJUN082023_05B52032023-06-08 · 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 sought to run his own small business restoring automobile interiors and exteriors in Florida, which he claimed would create jobs and provide economic benefits.
Field: automobile interior restoration · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The meaning of this passage is not clear, and the Petitioner did not explain the relevance of "a new . . . imaging modality" to the field of automobile interior restoration.”
“The overall, collective importance of all U.S. small businesses does not show the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed work with his company.”
“These are general statements, for which the Petitioner cites no evidentiary support.”
“The Petitioner did not establish that this level of employment produces economic benefits to a degree consistent with the Dhanasar national interest test.”
“Likewise, the Petitioner did not show that his company's purchase of raw materials and services provided to customers such as car dealerships have an economic impact beyond the local level.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“The Petitioner did not establish that this level of employment produces economic benefits to a degree consistent with the Dhanasar national interest test.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the individual did not provide supporting evidence to corroborate his claim”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“The Petitioner's response to the RFE included a different claimed employment history”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the record does not include copies of those contracts”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
1,358coded 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 also flagged significant unresolved discrepancies (inconsistent employment history, mismatched aerospace-technology letters, geographically implausible letter claims) suggesting credibility problems under section 204(b), but declined to reach a full second-prong analysis since the first-prong national importance failure was dispositive.
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
- Matter of Ho
- 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