dismissedNOV152023_03B52032023-11-15 · 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, a supply chain manager with over fifteen years of experience in Brazil, proposed to offer supply chain management and logistics consulting expertise to U.S. companies across various industries to improve efficiency and competitiveness.
Field: supply chain management / logistics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner provided evidence reflecting the potential general importance of supply chain operations but did not submit sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the potential prospective impact of his work would have national or even global implications within his field.”
“The Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that his proposed endeavor would have a broad influence commensurate with national importance.”
“The Petitioner does not establish the benefits to the regional or national economy that would result from his undertaking such that it reaches the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar.”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his clientele, such as those reflected in the two support letters”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the support letters do not detail with specificity how his work would have a national impact”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the Petitioner has not disclosed the size of the U.S. companies to which he had already provided services”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“these discuss the general importance of supply chain operations and do little to substantiate that his services would have a substantial national impact”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's expertise and experience is not relevant to establishing whether his proposed endeavor is of national importance”
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
- 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 distinguishes evidence relevant to national importance (prong 1) from evidence of the petitioner's personal competence (prong 2), explicitly noting that support letters attesting to the petitioner's expertise are misplaced under the first prong.
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. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Matter of L-A-C-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution