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 managing partner of an auto parts retail and distribution firm headquartered in Virginia, proposed to develop and expand the business into Tennessee and other Small Business Administration Hub Zone areas, sourcing products from Chinese manufacturers and serving Latin American customers.
Field: auto parts retail and distribution · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“But he does not address the SCOPS determination that he had not supported these claims with detailed, probative evidence.”
“the documentation submitted below indicated that the Petitioner already owns an auto parts business, but his tax documentation does not show that he currently employs others”
“SCOPS similarly observed that the Petitioner's claimed ability to fill a projected occupational shortage was not a relevant consideration within the Dhansar framework”
“the record does not contain sufficient evidence analyzing the impact of Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor such that it rises to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“he had not supported these claims with detailed, probative evidence”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner has not specified how the documents he references on appeal establish his eligibility”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the Petitioner has not specified how the documents he references on appeal establish his eligibility”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · ignored
“he has not provided such evidence on appeal or explained why he was unable to provide it previously”
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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
Notable
AAO expressly declined to determine underlying EB-2 (advanced degree/profession) eligibility since prong 1 was dispositive, citing INS v. Bagamasbad. The decision includes an extended string cite on the petitioner's burden to specifically identify supporting evidence rather than generally referencing voluminous submissions (Toquero, Spear Mktg, S.E.C. v. Thomas, Harolds Stores, Uli v. Mukasey). A footnote notes the Petitioner argued SCOPS applied an incorrect evidentiary standard but failed to elaborate, so the argument was not addressed on the merits.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Izummi
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