dismissedJUN292023_04B52032023-06-29 · 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, an entrepreneur, proposed to continue working in the U.S. as a business developer/consultant, creating technology companies and consulting startups, including an online food-delivery application called Food Circle.
Field: entrepreneurship/business consulting, application software · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner must show the national importance of his proposed endeavor of providing his entrepreneurial services to companies rather than the importance of entrepreneurism, small businesses, startups, or any of the related industries or fields”
“the record does not show through credible, supporting documentation how his anticipated entrepreneurial/consulting services stand to sufficiently extend beyond the particular companies”
“the business plan does not establish the benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar”
“the Petitioner did not demonstrate that such future staffing levels would provide substantial economic benefits to Florida or the region or U.S. economy more broadly”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan does not establish the benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“pertains more to the substantial benefit aspect of the proposed endeavor rather than the national importance part”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's experience, skills, expertise, and abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
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
- 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
1,358coded 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
AAO agreed the endeavor had substantial merit but withdrew the Director's favorable finding on national importance, dismissing on prong 1 alone despite the Director having found prong 1 satisfied below; AAO expressly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3.
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-
- 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