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 create a Florida-based company importing personal protective equipment (PPE) from Latin America for distribution to the U.S. market, offering logistics, customer tracking, and warehousing services, while serving as international purchasing director and business development coordinator.
Field: international trade / PPE importation and logistics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not establish the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond potential users of his PPE to impact international trade or the U.S. economy more broadly”
“the opinion does not help to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
“the business plans do not sufficiently detail the basis for the revenue and staffing projections, nor do they adequately explain how the revenue and staffing projections will be realized”
“this revenue and corresponding tax payments are insufficient, without more, to establish that his endeavor will have substantial positive economic effects at a level commensurate with national importance”
“the business plan contains inconsistencies that are not sufficiently explained in the record”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plans do not sufficiently detail the basis for the revenue and staffing projections”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the opinion does not help to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“his evidence does not explain how his services will have "broader implications" on America's standing in international trade”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“our decision is based on one dispositive issue, namely the national importance of his proposed endeavor”
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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
Notable
AAO considered evidence from a second, untimely-filed business plan (which the Director had excluded) 'because our decision is based on one dispositive issue,' effectively expanding the record in the petitioner's favor even while finding against him. AAO also cited an inconsistency between job types described in the business plan's narrative ('software engineering and product development') versus its actual staffing projections, invoking Matter of Ho on inconsistencies undermining reliability of remaining 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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Ho
- 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