dismissedMAR052026_02B52032026-03-05 · appeal · SCOPS 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 operate a company in Florida offering credit recovery services leveraging proprietary machine learning technology to enhance debtor identification, predictive tagging, and recovery prioritization for U.S. small and medium-sized enterprises.

Field: credit recovery services / financial technology (machine learning) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner did not establish that the employment figures contained in his plans, claiming for example that his company would employ 31 employees by year five, would utilize a significant population of workers”

“The submitted projections, without supporting evidence providing any basis for them or their economic significance, are not probative and do not meet the preponderance of the evidence standard.”

“merely working in an important field or in an area a government entity has described as a priority is not sufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”

“the Petitioner did not explain in the record below or now on appeal how, for example, his machine learning technology...would improve upon those already available and in use in the United States”

“the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his specific, proposed endeavor of providing...credit recovery services to U.S. businesses...in the state of Florida, which he has not done.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“The submitted projections, without supporting evidence providing any basis for them or their economic significance, are not probative and do not meet the preponderance of the evidence standard.”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“merely working in an important field or in an area a government entity has described as a priority is not sufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · ignored
“evidence in support of the Petitioner's background and qualifications is considered under Dhanasar's second prong, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national.”
AAO decision text
resume experience · ignored
“evidence in support of the Petitioner's background and qualifications is considered under Dhanasar's second prong, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national.”
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

1,312coded 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

SCOPS made a scrivener's error in the background section, describing the petitioner as intending to work as a 'legal environmental consultant,' which the AAO noted as harmless error under Matter of O-R-E-. The petitioner's appeal focused largely on procedural objections (lack of individualized analysis, failure to list exhibits) rather than substantively addressing the national importance deficiencies identified by SCOPS, which the AAO found unpersuasive. The endeavor was geographically limited to Florida, which weighed against national importance.

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer