dismissedAPR022025_07B52032025-04-02 · 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 intended to operate her own HR consulting company providing talent acquisition, employee training, HR strategy development, and organizational consulting services to U.S. businesses.
Field: human resources consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner's claims on appeal primarily rely on the importance of the human resources and consulting industries, rather than the prospective impact directly attributable to her specific endeavor.”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her potential customers to impact the field more broadly”
“the letter does not establish how the Petitioner's specific endeavor would broadly impact the field or otherwise lead to substantial economic effects as claimed”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the economic activity directly resulting from her company and its operations would rise to the level of national importance”
“the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these employment projections”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these employment projections”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letter does not establish how the Petitioner's specific endeavor would broadly impact the field”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · ignored
- other · discounted
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value.”
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
1,358coded 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 noted an unexplained discrepancy between payroll figures stated in the business plan narrative ($1,489,781) versus the profit-and-loss statement ($1,331,728), using this internal inconsistency to further discount the financial projections.
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)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Caron Int'l
- Matter of D-R-
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