dismissedSEP172024_02B52032024-09-17 · 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 planned to form his own company providing IT and business education/training services and consulting services to businesses, both in person and online.

Field: information technology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found Petitioner qualified as an individual of exceptional ability; this was not contested on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate the education and consulting services he intends to provide through his company extend beyond the company's specific clientele”

“he does not sufficiently explain or demonstrate how the specific services he proposes to provide offer original innovations to advance, or otherwise have wider implications in, the information technology field”

“the Petitioner's general assertions regarding the contributions his proposed endeavor will make to the national economy, and the unsupported projections in his business plan, are insufficient”

“even if we were to conclude that the financial projections in the business plan regarding revenue growth and job creation are well founded, which we do not”

“Our focus, however, is on the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake, rather than his credentials and experience or the importance of the industry or profession”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“the unsupported projections in his business plan, are insufficient to demonstrate his proposed endeavor is nationally important”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“These submissions generally speak to the Petitioner's character and professional experience, and the overall importance of information technology”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“primarily describes the Petitioner's experience in the field of information technology, or the overall impact information technology has on the economy”
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
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

AAO expressly reserved and declined to reach the Director's findings on prongs 2 and 3, and also on the 'substantial merit' component of prong 1, since the national importance failure 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)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
Flores v. Garland
Matter of L-A-C-

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show the company's services extended beyond its own clientele or had broader field-level implications constituting national importance.

Transferable lesson

Support projected job creation/revenue with credible, substantiated evidence and explicitly link endeavor's scale to national-level impact, not industry generalities.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · field_advancement · stem_positive_factor

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer