dismissedJUN152023_05B52032023-06-15 · 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, an entrepreneur, sought to expand his Brazilian hydraulic-equipment distribution company into the United States, partnering with a Spanish manufacturer to become its sole Florida distributor of valves and fluid-control equipment.
Field: hydraulic equipment distribution business · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“he did not elaborate on these projections or provide evidence supporting the need for these additional employees”
“he did not adequately explain how these sales forecasts were calculated”
“the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company's business operations to impact his industry or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance”
“he has not offered sufficient evidence that the area where his company will operate is economically depressed, that he would employ a significant population of workers in that area”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
“The letter from H-D-P-, however, does not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“he did not elaborate on these projections or provide evidence supporting the need for these additional employees”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“does not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence”
AAO decision text - media · credited
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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
1,358coded 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 explicitly reserved and declined to reach the third Dhanasar prong despite stating each ground would independently support dismissal; petitioner's reliance on general infrastructure/supply-chain policy articles (e.g., Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal) was credited toward 'substantial merit' but not toward national importance of the specific endeavor.
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.
- 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