dismissedOCT292024_05B52032024-10-29 · 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 proposed to start an IT consulting company providing Hyperconvergence infrastructure (HCI) consulting, deployment, training, and outsourcing services to small and mid-size U.S. businesses.
Field: information technology / IT consulting (Hyperconvergence infrastructure) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“This material, however, does not provide sufficient insight into the Petitioner's plans to provide IT services through a company”
“the projections in the business plan are not supported by objective evidence to demonstrate how his company would have a prospective national impact”
“he has not sufficiently demonstrated that this broad category properly captures the potential impact of his particular business endeavor”
“he has not shown that his proposed endeavor would offer a region or its population substantial economic benefits through employment levels, business activity, or tax revenue”
“fluctuating opportunities within the general labor market do not demonstrate that his endeavor stands to have an impact on any of the numerous industries served by IT service providers”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the projections in the business plan are not supported by objective evidence to demonstrate how his company would have a prospective national impact”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“these letters do not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or provide information to demonstrate that it will have an impact on a national scale”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“evidence relating to a petitioner's training, skills, and experience typically applies to the second prong of Dhanasar”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“it does not speak to how the Petitioner's individual endeavor to run an IT services company would have a potential prospective impact of national importance”
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
- 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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
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
AAO relied on a specific critique of the Petitioner's RIMS II economic modeling methodology, finding the broad industry category used ('custom computer programming services' in Texas) did not properly capture the specific business's potential impact, undermining the job-creation and tax-revenue projections.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- 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