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, a customs broker and CEO, proposed to start a company in Florida providing customs clearance, aircraft import/export consulting, freight forwarding, and logistics services.
Field: aviation and customs brokerage / freight forwarding and logistics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
“these claims are not supported by relevant or probative evidence, details showing their basis, or an explanation of how they will be realized”
“The Petitioner's business plan provides a generalized description of the company's marketing and growth strategy and projected sales”
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact to the field have little probative value.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“these claims are not supported by relevant or probative evidence, details showing their basis, or an explanation of how they will be realized”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“Broad statements and projections regarding the potential growth of the Petitioner's business-based upon his experience as a licensed customs broker in Brazil”
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
Notable
The AAO expressly reserved the exceptional-ability classification question since the national-importance failure alone was dispositive; it used a hypothetical physical-therapy shortage example to illustrate that local business/occupational shortage arguments do not establish national importance, though the Petitioner had not raised that specific argument.
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-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner conflated the importance of the aviation/customs industry generally with the national importance of his specific proposed company, offering no direct evidentiary link between his endeavor and claimed economic or industry-wide effects.
Tie projected impact (jobs, revenue, industry effects) directly and evidentially to the specific proposed endeavor itself—not to the broader importance of the industry or occupation.
moderate
economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · stem_positive_factor · us_competitiveness
mixed
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