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 software engineer/IT specialist, proposed to bring digital transformation and digital marketing software applications and technical training to U.S. companies, commercializing custom software products through his own company.
Field: information technology / software engineering / digital transformation · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“the record does not support that his company would operate on such a large scale that would benefit the U.S. economy rising to the level of national importance”
“these documents do not corroborate the nature or numerosity of clients or clients' projects to support the claims that his endeavor will have substantial economic impact”
“The record, however, does not indicate that the Petitioner's automation technology implemented at this driving academy is widely spread or used in the United States”
“The business plan also estimated that the operation team will grow to ten members in the first year, but the Petitioner later claimed... his contribution to the country is not focused on my company job creation itself”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“it does not sufficiently demonstrate the basis for its financial projections”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“does not indicate that the Petitioner's automation technology implemented at this driving academy is widely spread or used in the United States”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“these documents do not corroborate the nature or numerosity of clients or clients' projects”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · credited
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
Notable
AAO withdrew the Director's rationale that the RFE-stage personal statement was inadmissible under Katigbak/Izummi as reflecting a material change, and reviewed the full record, but still affirmed denial on independent national-importance grounds; AAO also criticized the Director's original decision as conclusory and lacking evidentiary analysis before substituting its own substantive analysis.
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
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