dismissedMAY062024_02B52032024-05-06 · 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 serve as CEO of his own startup logistics/transportation company near Florida, providing parcel and pallet shipping and supply-chain optimization services for clients, and planned to hire 16 workers within five years.
Field: logistics and transportation · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not establish how the potential prospective impact of the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have the type of broader implications contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong”
“The record establishes that the proposed endeavor will benefit the Petitioner, as the chief executive officer of his own company, and the clients or customers who will use the company's services”
“the record does not establish how the Petitioner's startup logistics and transportation company based in Florida... may have national or even global implications within the field of logistics”
“the record does not establish how employing 16 workers based near Florida, demonstrates 'significant potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other substantial positive economic effects'”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“neither the Petitioner's prior work experience nor "industry reports and articles"... are material to whether the proposed endeavor may have national importance”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the 'industry reports and articles' in the record... do not address the Petitioner, the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the record does not establish how employing 16 workers based near Florida, demonstrates 'significant potential to employ U.S. workers'”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- 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 expressly reserved opinion on prongs 2 and 3 after finding prong 1 dispositive, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for declining to reach alternative issues, even though the Director had found prong 2 satisfied and prong 3 unsatisfied.
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.
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
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