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 former co-owner of a trucking company in Brazil, proposed to start and direct as CEO a new trucking/freight transportation and warehousing company in Florida serving U.S. wholesalers and agricultural companies.
Field: trucking/freight transportation and logistics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner did not submit evidence that his specific proposed endeavor would be of substantial merit per the Dhanasar analytical framework”
“the projections for job creation included in both versions of the business plan are not well supported, as it is unclear how the Petitioner arrived at those figures”
“the Petitioner has not established that the employment of 27 workers...is significant to the extent that it would be of national interest”
“he does not articulate, in the business plans or elsewhere, how he intends to affect the business practices of his competitors”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“it is unclear how the Petitioner arrived at those figures”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“The Petitioner's qualifications and previous achievements are not relevant to the determination of the national interest of his proposed endeavor.”
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
- 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
AAO withdrew the Director's favorable EB-2/exceptional-ability and prong-1 substantial-merit findings sua sponte, criticizing the Director's brief analysis as procedurally flawed, before independently finding prong 1 not met on national importance grounds; also faulted Petitioner for citing an unsupported USCIS policy claim that conflicts with Dhanasar's framework.
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)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed prong 1: unsupported job-creation projections and no evidence the endeavor's impact extended beyond the company/clients or region, so national importance unestablished.
Support economic-impact projections with specific, verifiable data and tie them to regional/national significance (e.g., economically depressed area) rather than relying on generic industry trends or personal credentials.
vague
economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · field_advancement
person_focused
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