dismissedMAY252021_03B52032021-05-25 · 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 operate a U.S. company developing an online platform to optimize use of agricultural machinery and services, aiming eventually to expand nationwide.
Field: agricultural business / agtech platform · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient, credible information and supporting evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and clientele to impact his field or the U.S. agriculture industry more broadly”
“he has not identified how many U.S. workers will be employed by the company and where they will be located”
“The business plan does not indicate which positions these additional employees will occupy, how many of these employees will be from the United States, and the geographic location of these employees.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient, credible information and supporting evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“The Petitioner's experience in his field relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
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
AAO's conclusion section states the Petitioner did not establish threshold EB-2 eligibility, contradicting the earlier statement that the Director found the advanced-degree classification satisfied and that this was the sole remaining issue; likely boilerplate/drafting inconsistency rather than a substantive threshold finding.
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.
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Poursina v. USCIS
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