dismissedMAY232024_07B52032024-05-23 · 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 proposed to operate a company in South Dakota that sells, installs, and maintains refrigeration equipment specialized for the food industry, serving as its CEO and employing up to 18 workers within five years.

Field: refrigeration equipment sales/installation for food industry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“neither the business plan nor the remainder of the record elaborates-with objective information-on what relationship there may be between "very few establishments" and whatever demand for relevant products and services there may be”

“the [P]etitioner has not provided specific information or data relevant to economic effects potentially resulting from this general entrepreneurship.”

“The [P]etitioner has not established that his proposed work has implications beyond the current company or any prospective businesses [sic] partners, alliances, and/or unidentified clients”

“the record does not establish how that employment "would have substantial positive effects in the South Dakota community,"”

“the Petitioner's references to publications in the record that provide generalized information regarding business, refrigeration equipment, refrigeration equipment technicians, and similar topics, are immaterial”

“the record does not establish how employing 18 workers in those job categories in [ ] South Dakota, demonstrates "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area."”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“the record does not establish how employing 18 workers in those job categories...demonstrates significant potential to employ U.S. workers”
AAO decision text
media · discounted
“are immaterial to whether the potential prospective impact of the specific endeavor...may have the type of broader implications indicative of national importance”
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

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

The AAO expressly reserved its opinion on the underlying exceptional-ability EB-2 classification and on Dhanasar prongs two and three, resolving the appeal solely on the first prong's national importance failure, noting the Director had similarly skipped prong two.

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)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
Flores v. Garland
Matter of L-A-C-

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show national importance: generalized industry publications and unquantified local job creation (18 workers in South Dakota) did not establish broader national or regional economic implications.

Transferable lesson

Support job-creation/local-business endeavors with objective data on market need, economic conditions (e.g., depressed area), and scale linking the specific venture to national-level impact, not generic industry literature.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · geographic_or_shortage_area

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer