dismissedJUN292023_03B52032023-06-29 · 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 proposed to serve as Chief Executive/entrepreneur of a Florida-based company offering on-demand medium-sized cargo transport and supply chain management services throughout the United States, with plans to hire 42 workers over five years.
Field: cargo transport / supply chain management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“has not established that his proposed work has implications beyond his current employer (or any prospective employers or self-owned company), their business partners, alliances, clients or his workplace”
“does not demonstrate that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from his undertaking would reach the level of 'substantial positive economic effects' contemplated by Dhanasar”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on the "specific endeavor"”
“The general industry reports and articles in the record, referenced by the Petitioner, do not address the specific proposed endeavor”
“do not... elaborate on how the proposed endeavor may have national or even global implications within a particular field, significant potential to employ U.S. workers”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“does not address the specific proposed endeavor nor do they elaborate on how the proposed endeavor may have national or even global implications”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong, whether the proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“The general industry reports and articles in the record...do not address the specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
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
The Petitioner conflated field/industry importance and personal qualifications (education, experience) with the endeavor-specific national importance analysis; AAO explicitly clarified that education/experience belong to prong 2, not prong 1.
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
- 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