dismissedMAR282023_02B52032023-03-28 · 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, a supply chain and logistics specialist, proposed to provide consulting-type services to U.S. companies (with a later focus on pharmaceutical manufacturers) to improve supply chain efficiency, reduce costs, and assist with onshoring manufacturing and drug safety.
Field: supply chain management / logistics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his services as a supply chain specialist rather than the national importance of supply chain specialists, logistic services, the pharmaceutical industry”
“the record, including testimonial letters, does not show how his services stand to sufficiently extend beyond his potential or futuristic employers or clients”
“the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“does not show how his services stand to sufficiently extend beyond his potential or futuristic employers or clients”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
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 explicitly distinguishes industry/field importance from importance of the specific endeavor, and notes the Petitioner's shift in argument between initial filing (general supply chain expertise) and RFE/appeal (pharmaceutical onshoring focus) without crediting either as establishing national importance.
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 Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution