dismissedSEP192024_14B52032024-09-19 · 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 proposed to serve as CEO of his California-based company offering training, consulting, and IoT-related technology solutions to help small and medium-sized agribusiness companies improve efficiency and productivity.
Field: agribusiness consulting / IoT technology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner's specific undertaking stands to have an impact beyond the organizations and clients he would serve”
“the record does not show through supporting documentation how his specific company that provides consulting services to the agricultural industry stands to sufficiently extend beyond his prospective clients”
“The business plan makes various financial projections but has not offered evidence to corroborate the contents.”
“the record does not show that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the plan does not provide sufficient detail of the basis for these projections, or adequately explain how these sales and staffing targets will be realized”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“those relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national"”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“The Petitioner's contentions and submissions of industry articles and reports relates to the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor rather than the 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
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 declines to reach prong 3 despite Petitioner briefing it, citing Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for declining 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