dismissedMAY212024_01B52032024-05-21 · 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, a musician and software engineer, proposed to create an AI- and augmented-reality-based software platform for music education, which after RFE evolved into a company he would own and lead as CEO employing developers and engineers.
Field: music education technology / software · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not establish how broad its scope will be outside of the teacher and student reach in the initial submission”
“the record does not show how the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor stands to impact the economy”
“It is the importance of the specific endeavor we must analyze and not the industry itself”
“we acknowledge the importance of this field, the record does not establish that the petitioner's endeavor is novel or exclusive to the Petitioner”
“the record does not show the number of employees, the jobs he will create, or an adequate amount of money being allocated to pay for enough salaries”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established
“The record does not establish progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor.”
“Although he did submit a business plan and incorporate his company, as we discussed above, this was done after his initial filing.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“this was done after his initial filing”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
- degree · credited
- other · discounted
“It is the importance of the specific endeavor we must analyze and not the industry itself.”
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
- Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
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 noted the proposed endeavor materially changed between the initial filing and the RFE response (from a software tool to a company with the Petitioner as CEO), found the Director improperly relied on the changed endeavor without allowing the Petitioner to address it, but nonetheless analyzed both versions and found neither established national importance.
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)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
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