dismissedJUN262025_03B52032025-06-26 · 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 Beneficiary, a regional logistics manager for a yard-management and trailer-spotting company, proposed to continue in his current role optimizing supply chain processes and profit/loss management while sharing his expertise at industry conferences.

Field: logistics and supply chain management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

“the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary's endeavor alone, implemented for I and its clients, have national implications within the field of logistics management.”

“the evidence does not show that his proposed work stands to offer economic benefits beyond his employer and their clientele.”

“Broad statements and projections relating to the Beneficiary's "strategic leadership" across the industry...do not demonstrate the prospective impact directly attributable to the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor.”

“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to the Beneficiary's specific work...”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“Broad statements and projections relating to the Beneficiary's "strategic leadership" across the industry...do not demonstrate the prospective impact directly attributable to the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner does not offer a sufficiently direct evidentiary tie between the proposed endeavor and the claimed economic results.”
AAO decision text
other · ignored

Where this case turned

Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
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

2,501coded 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

SCOPS and AAO conceded the endeavor had substantial merit but found no national importance because the claimed benefits were tied to the Beneficiary's employer and its clients rather than a broader national economic impact; the AAO expressly declined to reach prongs two and three as moot.

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
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer