dismissedOCT292024_06B52032024-10-29 · 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 sought to expand his existing software development company into the U.S., further developing a workplace-safety data product, and grow the business into a leading custom software manufacturer.
Field: information technology / software development · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“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.”
“the business plan does not identify any specific intentions that his company has concerning particular research projects”
“the projections in the business plan are not supported by objective evidence to demonstrate how his company would have a prospective national impact”
“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”
“The Petitioner's intention to transmit his knowledge to his employees is not considered an activity that would have a broad impact on his field.”
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 on the field”
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
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- 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 explicitly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the principle that agencies need not make advisory findings on unnecessary issues.
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