dismissedMAY012025_02B52032025-05-01 · appeal
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 sought to establish and direct child daycare centers in Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina offering language, sports, dance, and art activities for young children.
Field: early childhood education / child daycare services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate her endeavor to create, and to work as the director of child daycare centers would extend beyond her clients”
“Our focus in assessing national importance, however, is on the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake and its prospective impact rather than the importance of entrepreneurship generally or the industry or profession”
“the unsupported revenue and employment projections provided and the general conclusions in both the business plans and the expert opinion letter are insufficient”
“they do not establish that the projected revenue or number of jobs expected to be created by the proposed endeavor... would have substantial positive economic effects”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the unsupported revenue and employment projections provided... are insufficient to demonstrate that the proposed endeavor would have national-level economic implications”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters of recommendation... do not address the specific endeavor or the services the Petitioner would provide through her company”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“this evidence, however, relates to whether the Petitioner is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor under Dhanasar prong two, rather than whether her proposed endeavor is nationally important”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the articles she provided that discuss the importance of the entrepreneurship and immigrant entrepreneurs... do not address the specific endeavor”
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
Petitioner raised due process/APA arguments claiming SCOPS was required to analyze all three Dhanasar prongs and had ignored evidence; AAO rejected both claims, citing INS v. Bagamasbad for the proposition that agencies need not make 'purely advisory findings' on unnecessary issues, and noting SCOPS had in fact acknowledged the business plan and other evidence.
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
- Flores v. Garland
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