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 start a security services business in the United States, initially in Florida with plans to expand to Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas, with a stated focus on combatting drug trafficking.
Field: security management / security services (drug trafficking interdiction) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not establish that the endeavor rises to the level of national importance as contemplated in Dhanasar”
“his business plan indicates he will start his services in Florida and then extend his prospective impact to Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas”
“The Petitioner's projections for his endeavor to expand are not supported by sufficient explanation and evidence”
“he does not sufficiently support these projections with objective data as necessary to demonstrate that the benefits to the regional or national economy”
“he has not shown that his company's future staffing levels, 22 employees, stands to provide substantial economic benefits in this area or in the United States”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“The Petitioner's projections for his endeavor to expand are not supported by sufficient explanation and evidence”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · ignored
“this letter expressed interest in possibly contracting with the Petitioner's company for security services and is more relevant to whether the individual is well-positioned”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“he does not sufficiently support these projections with objective data as necessary to demonstrate that the benefits to the regional or national economy”
AAO decision text - resume experience · ignored
- certification membership · ignored
All 6 evidence items
- other · ignored
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO clarified that a post-filing-dated letter of interest was relevant to prong 2 (well-positioned), not prong 1 (national importance), correcting the Director's rationale for disregarding it, though the outcome remained the same. AAO reserved the threshold exceptional-ability finding and prongs 2 and 3 as unnecessary given the dispositive prong 1 failure.
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
- INA 203(b)(2)
- 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