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 launch and expand a U.S.-based manufacturing company producing eco-friendly custom wallpaper, posters, and point-of-purchase displays.
Field: manufacturing (eco-friendly custom wallpaper, posters, and point-of-purchase displays) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would primarily benefit his own company and its immediate customers and therefore lacks broader implications beyond”
“While the fact that an operation is part of a broader system might be one negligible factor in the bigger picture, it fails to demonstrate the "potential prospective impact" of his actual proposed work.”
“Routine or incremental contributions that merely add knowledge or other improvements to the field without broader implications are generally insufficient to satisfy Dhanasar's prong one requirements.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
The AAO adopted and affirmed the service center's decision in full (citing Matter of J-A-, Burbano, Ming Dai, and Giday on the propriety of adopt-and-affirm practice), then devoted most of the decision to an extended doctrinal discussion of what 'national importance' means under Dhanasar's first prong, using Dhanasar's own bifurcated research-vs-teaching endeavors as an illustrative contrast. No evidence types (letters, business plan, etc.) were substantively discussed beyond the endeavor description itself.
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. 103.5
- Matter of Y-B-
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