dismissedJUN232023_03B52032023-06-23 · 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 expand his IT consulting company, D-I-A-C-, providing cybersecurity, IT infrastructure, and business process improvement services to small and medium-sized U.S. businesses.
Field: IT consulting / cybersecurity · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO did not dispute, that Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The issue here, however, is not the national importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
“We are not persuaded by the Petitioner's claim that his proposed endeavor has national importance due to the shortage of professionals in his industry.”
“he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
“he did not elaborate on these projections or provide evidence supporting the need for these additional employees”
“he has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his future company and its clientele to impact the IT consulting industry, the cybersecurity field, or the U.S. economy more broadly”
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...to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed work offers broader implications”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”
AAO decision text - other · 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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
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
The AAO flagged geographic inconsistencies in the business plan (misidentifying a city's county location) as undermining its plausibility, using this as supporting evidence for rejecting the business plan's credibility.
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