dismissedJUN252024_03B52032024-06-25 · 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 establish a mixed-use grocery store selling fresh staple goods and prepared meals, aiming to improve food access in underserved areas, later expanding to additional cities/states.

Field: grocery/food service business · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not demonstrate that, beyond the limited benefits provided to its prospective clients and employees, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has broader implications rising to the level of having national importance”

“the matter here is not whether these issues are nationally important. Rather, the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of her specific, proposed endeavor”

“the Petitioner did not establish the significance of this data to show that the benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”

“the Petitioner did not present sufficient supporting evidence corroborating the assertions and figures”

“the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national."”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not show the broader impact of the Petitioner's work beyond that to her specific employers and customers”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner did not present sufficient supporting evidence corroborating the assertions and figures”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“the resumes accompanying several of the letters are written in the same format despite allegedly reflecting the professional and educational experience of different individuals”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“her submission of market research reports about the supermarket and grocery store industry do not establish the national importance of her particular professional services or business”
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
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

1,312coded 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 noted the Director's use of second-prong language (record of success, influence on field) in the first-prong denial was 'harmless error' since national importance was independently unmet; also flagged suspicious identical resume formatting across different individuals' letters as a credibility concern.

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
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer