dismissedNOV122025_03B52032025-11-12 · appeal

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, CEO of two related companies, proposed to create and sell food products focused on Hispanic flavors and organic superfoods, sourcing ingredients from South America and distributing through retail and online sales in the United States.

Field: food products/consumer goods business · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“Here, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence or detailed information to demonstrate that his proposed endeavor will bring substantial economic benefits for the country that would rise to the level of national importance.”

“the record does not establish that the Petitioner's business activities stand to sufficiently extend beyond his clients to enhance societal welfare on a broader scale indicative of national importance.”

“the relevant question when determining whether a proposed endeavor would have national importance is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”

“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or will create a broad impact without providing evidence to corroborate such claims.”

“the record does not indicate that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

contract revenue · discounted
“he has not sufficiently demonstrated how they would contribute to nationwide economic growth.”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the record does not support the Petitioner's general assertions with corroborating evidence demonstrating the plausibility of those assertions.”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · ignored
degree · credited

Where this case turned

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

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 expressly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3, noting SCOPS had actually found those prongs satisfied and only prong 1 (national importance) was at issue; case involved a food products/CPG business with retail distribution claims of national scope, which AAO rejected as insufficiently corroborated.

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. 103.5
Flores v. Garland
Matter of L-A-C-

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to corroborate claims of national economic, health, or industry impact with evidence beyond company sales figures and general assertions of scope.

Transferable lesson

Support national importance claims with quantified, corroborated projections of job creation, economic effect, or field-wide impact—not just revenue or distribution figures.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · public_health

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer