dismissedOCT272023_02B52032023-10-27 · appeal · Nebraska 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 sought to own and operate a Florida-based insurance sales agency, offering life, health, and auto insurance policies while training staff and future industry professionals.
Field: insurance sales · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“it does not address how, specifically, the Petitioner's role as the owner of an insurance sales company will impact the insurance industry or the regions in which he expects his business to operate.”
“It is not clear how training twelve insurance agents would benefit the U.S. labor market or the economy.”
“these and other projections in the business plan, however, are not accompanied by an explanation of the origins of the figures used in their calculation.”
“The Petitioner's intent to transfer his knowledge to his company's staff is not considered an activity that will have a broad impact on the insurance industry or the field of insurance sales.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“The business plan itself is generalized and emphasizes those same topics at length”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the opinion letter does not provide additional insight or detail concerning the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“do not speak to the national importance of the Petitioner's specific endeavor to operate an insurance sales company in the United States”
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
- 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
1,312coded 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
The AAO expressly reserved the underlying EB-2 classification issue (advanced degree/exceptional ability) because the Director's decision never addressed it, despite an RFE having raised it; the NIW prong 1 denial alone was dispositive.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- 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