dismissedJUN222026_01B52032026-06-22 · appeal
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, a COO of a telecommunications-related parent company, proposed to serve as commercial director and country manager of his own company providing high-performance internet connectivity, colocation, interconnection, cloud and managed services to U.S. companies expanding into Latin America.
Field: telecommunications / internet connectivity and cloud services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that his proposed endeavor offers broader implications in his field or substantial positive economic effects for the country that rise to the level of national importance”
“the Petitioner does not provide sufficient detail of the basis of these projections or adequately explain how these staffing targets and revenue forecasts will be realized”
“the relevant question when determining whether a proposed endeavor would have national importance is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
“they do not offer sufficient explanation of how the Petitioner's endeavor has the potential for broad and measurable implications for the country beyond impacting his company and its clients”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not offer sufficient explanation of how the Petitioner's endeavor has the potential for broad and measurable implications for the country”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“does not provide sufficient detail of the basis of these projections or adequately explain how these staffing targets and revenue forecasts will be realized”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“they are generally immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
Where this case turned
- 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
2,589coded 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 cites Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85 (5th Cir. 2023) in a footnote to reaffirm that NIW adjudication is discretionary, aligning with Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit precedent.
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.
- 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