dismissedMAR212025_03B52032025-03-21 · 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 establish an IT consulting startup in Virginia offering services such as cybersecurity, network security, business intelligence, and technical support to small and medium-sized businesses.
Field: information technology consulting / cybersecurity · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the proposed endeavor's "impact appears to be limited to the [P]etitioner's proposed self owned enterprise, and its direct clients," rather than having national importance”
“the business plan's reliability and sufficiency are undermined”
“the record does not establish whether the proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or other substantial positive economic effects”
“the Petitioner does not establish what advancements his company has the potential to catalyze, and how such a catalyzation would occur”
“neither the business plan nor the remainder of the record establishes that the information technology consulting company would provide goods or services to an area with an inadequate supply of such goods and services”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan's reliability and sufficiency are undermined”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the RIMS II analysis bears minimal weight, given that it is based on arbitrary and unsubstantiated financial estimations”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“it provides a new set of facts that did not exist at the time of filing, which cannot-and does not-establish eligibility”
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
- 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 faulted the petitioner for submitting a 2024-dated industry report to support a 2023-filed petition, invoking Katigbak/Izummi to reject after-acquired evidence as an improper attempt to establish eligibility with a new set of facts.
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of V-K-
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