dismissedMAY132024_04B52032024-05-13 · 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 sought to continue operating and expanding his Florida-incorporated cellphone accessory kiosk business, which sells accessories in malls and shopping centers across the U.S.

Field: retail business / cellphone accessories · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his specific, proposed endeavor of owning and operating his particular cellphone accessory business.”

“the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his cellphone accessory business largely influences the field and rises to the level of national importance.”

“the Petitioner did not demonstrate that such future staffing levels would provide substantial economic benefits to the I I Florida region or other anticipated regions or the U.S. economy more broadly”

“The record does not show through supporting documentation how his endeavor sufficiently extends beyond his prospective customers, to impact the field or the U.S. economy more broadly”

“the Petitioner did not establish that such figures would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner did not demonstrate that such future staffing levels would provide substantial economic benefits”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“The Petitioner's arguments and evidence relate to the substantial merit aspect of the proposed endeavor rather than the national importance part.”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
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
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

1,312coded 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 declines to review the Director's favorable finding on exceptional-ability eligibility since prong one alone was dispositive; cites Bagamasbad and L-A-C- for declining to reach unnecessary issues, and frames dismissal as resting on independent alternate bases.

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
INA 203(b)(2)
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer