dismissedSEP182024_06B52032024-09-18 · 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 sought to expand his high-technology consulting and training business to serve the U.S. manufacturing industry, offering predictive maintenance analysis, training, and a new software tool for centralizing test results.
Field: high technology consulting and predictive maintenance for manufacturing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
“we conclude the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and its clientele to impact his field”
“he did not elaborate on these projections or provide evidence supporting the need for these additional employees”
“these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved”
“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims”
“the issue here is not the national importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
“The national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands separate and apart from his education, skills, and job experience”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's education and prior work in the field... relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · ignored
- contract revenue · discounted
“these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved.”
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
- 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
Petitioner raised an APA argument alleging the RFE and denial contained contradictory, arbitrary, boilerplate statements; AAO declined to address it because no specific APA provision was cited.
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 Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution