dismissedMAR272023_04B52032023-03-27 · 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 work as an independent business owner in supply chain management and logistics, later shifting on RFE to describe operating a trucking company, aiming to improve supply chain efficiency and create jobs.
Field: supply chain management / logistics (later trucking) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“Although the Petitioner initially discussed the importance of developing efficient approaches to the supply chain, the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of her specific, proposed endeavor rather than the importance of SCM and logistics.”
“The Petitioner did not offer specific information and evidence to corroborate her assertions that the prospective impact of continuing her work as an entrepreneur in SCM and logistics rises to the level of national importance.”
“Without evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to her future work, the record does not show any benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy...”
“Accordingly, we will not consider the Petitioner's materially changed proposed endeavor of creating and operating”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“A petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's experience and abilities in her field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“reflects dates after the issuance of the Director's RFE”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- 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
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
AAO refused to consider the Petitioner's shift from proposed SCM/logistics business to a trucking company, treating evidence dated after the RFE as reflecting a materially changed, after-arising endeavor under Izummi/Bardouille rather than evaluating it on the merits.
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
- Matter of Bardouille
- Matter of Izummi
- 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