dismissedMAY142024_11B52032024-05-14 · 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 serve as general and operations manager of his own Florida-based company installing LED and large digital screens for advertising and event signage in businesses, schools, hospitals, and public venues.

Field: business management / digital advertising and signage installation · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

AAO agreed with the Director that the Petitioner's bachelor's-equivalent degree plus 18 years of progressive experience satisfied EB-2 advanced-degree professional classification.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“These photographs show how his services would benefit his clients and customers, but do not establish that the Company's services have a potential prospective impact beyond those customers and clients at a level commiserate with national importance.”

“his business plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for the revenue and staffing projections, nor does it adequately explain how the revenue and staffing projections will be realized.”

“his assertions with respect to the shortage of project managers in the United States, like him, does not render his proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework because the U.S. Department of Labor directly addresses these shortages through the labor certification process.”

“merely working in an important field or profession is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor, as we explained in Dhanasar.”

“the Petitioner has not established that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from his endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“his business plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for the revenue and staffing projections, nor does it adequately explain how the revenue and staffing projections will be realized.”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“this evidence is relevant to our analysis under Dhanasar's second prong ... but do not relate to the national importance of the endeavor.”
AAO decision text
contract revenue · discounted
“without more, he has not established that his endeavor will have substantial positive economic effects at a level commensurate with national importance.”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“These photographs show how his services would benefit his clients and customers, but do not establish ... a level commiserate with national importance.”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“they do not specifically discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or explain how his endeavor would have broader implications.”
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
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

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

Footnote 3 flags that the Petitioner's appeal brief inadvertently included assertions pertaining to a different petitioner (a female individual with medical/business experience), citing Matter of Ho for the proposition that such inconsistencies undermine the credibility of the 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. 103.2(b)(8)
8 C.F.R. 103.3
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
Flores v. Garland
Matter of E-M-
Matter of Ho
Matter of L-A-C-
USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show the endeavor's impact extended beyond his own customers/clients or offered innovations reaching national-level significance; job creation claims were unsubstantiated.

Transferable lesson

Support job/revenue projections with concrete methodology and tie the specific business's impact to broader field or economy, not just personal credentials or generic industry importance.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · us_competitiveness

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer