dismissedSEP182024_04B52032024-09-18 · 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 serve as CEO of his own IT/business-intelligence company in Massachusetts, providing customized data analytics and IT solutions to U.S. companies in manufacturing, retail, finance, and healthcare, with planned expansion to other states.
Field: information technology / business intelligence services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“his business plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for the revenue and staffing projections, nor does it adequately explain how the revenue and staffing projections will be realized”
“the Petitioner has not established that his endeavor will have the significant potential to employ U.S. workers or other substantial positive economic effects at a level commensurate with national importance”
“the record does not support a conclusion that this is an equitable comparison”
“these not only have substantial merit in relation to U.S. science and technology interests, but do not necessarily have sufficiently broad potential implications”
“much of the content of the expert opinion letter restates the same national importance arguments the Petitioner asserts”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“does not sufficiently detail the basis for the revenue and staffing projections”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“much of the content of the expert opinion letter restates the same national importance arguments the Petitioner asserts”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“they do not specifically discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or explain how his endeavor would have broader implications”
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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- 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 cites Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) to affirm that NIW adjudications are discretionary, aligning with other circuits. The Petitioner's HUBZone-based national importance argument was rejected as not equivalent to an 'economically depressed area' under Dhanasar.
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. 103.2(b)(8)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- Matter of Caron Int'l
- Matter of D-R-
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
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