dismissedNOV082022_01B52032022-11-08 · 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 start a U.S.-based company producing consumer and commercial robots (sweeping, floor washing, mowing), establish a cloud computing center for remote robot control, provide consulting services, and eventually build an independent robotics brand employing U.S. software engineers and sales staff.
Field: robotics engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“this information is insufficient to demonstrate the national importance of his particular proposed endeavor in the United States”
“he has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his future company and its customers to impact the robotics industry or the U.S. economy more broadly”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects”
“The Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor stands to impact or significantly reduce the claimed labor shortages.”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“this information is insufficient to demonstrate the national importance of his particular proposed endeavor in the United States”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
- patents · discounted
“relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- 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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
2,501coded 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 explicitly separates evidence relevant to prong 1 (national importance of the specific endeavor) from prong 2 evidence (petitioner's qualifications, patents, customer interest, technical skills), criticizing Petitioner for conflating the two; also notes labor shortages are addressed through the labor certification process rather than NIW.
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)
- INA 291
- 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