dismissedSEP262023_04B52032023-09-26 · 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 continue working as a logistics and shipping manager and to start his own business providing international logistics, shipping, import/export, chartering, wholesaling, freighting, and transportation services.

Field: logistics and supply chain management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

AAO withdrew the Director's finding that Petitioner qualified as an advanced-degree professional because he lacked official transcripts and his recommendation letters were not from employers, lacked employment dates, and did not confirm full-time status, failing to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B)'s requirements for the bachelor's-plus-five-years equivalency.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“these employment and revenue projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be realized”

“the record does not support that the direct creation of 40 additional full-time and part-time jobs in this sector or the expected revenue generated by the company will have a substantial economic benefit commensurate with the national importance element”

“none of them offer persuasive detail concerning the impact of his proposed endeavor or how such impact would extend beyond his clients”

“in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”

“the Petitioner has not provided evidence that the areas where his company intends to operate are economically depressed”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

degree · discounted
“he did not submit official transcripts”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“none of them offer persuasive detail concerning the impact of his proposed endeavor or how such impact would extend beyond his clients”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“these employment and revenue projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be realized”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's expertise and record of success in previous positions are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text
media · discounted
“the articles and reports do not discuss any particulars of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or its prospective impact rising to the level 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
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

The AAO took the unusual step of withdrawing the Director's favorable finding that Petitioner qualified as an advanced-degree professional, finding the underlying EB-2 classification itself unmet, before separately dismissing on Dhanasar prong one grounds; it also specifically rejected a HUBZone-based economic impact argument for lack of evidentiary support.

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)
Matter of L-A-C-
Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer