dismissedAPR042025_02B52032025-04-04 · 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 proposed to establish and operate a consulting firm in California providing project planning, technical consulting, and marketing services for infrastructure and construction projects in sectors such as transportation, healthcare, energy, and commercial real estate, with plans to expand nationally.
Field: civil engineering / construction management consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner, however, has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that her endeavor meets the threshold of national importance.”
“the Petitioner does not provide sufficient detail of the basis of these projections or adequately explain how these staffing targets and revenue forecasts will be realized.”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her business will generate large-scale employment beyond what is typical for similar business in the industry.”
“merely working in an important field or profession is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor, as we explained in Dhanasar.”
“she has not demonstrated that her specific endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her clients and employees to enhance societal welfare on a broader scale indicative of national importance.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner does not provide sufficient detail of the basis of these projections or adequately explain how these staffing targets and revenue forecasts will be realized”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“The first prong focuses on the proposed endeavor itself: not the petitioner.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“these sources highlight the significance of the Petitioner's field, they do not specifically address her proposed endeavor or demonstrate its national importance”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · ignored
- degree · ignored
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 reserved the underlying EB-2 classification eligibility question entirely, resolving the appeal solely on Dhanasar prong 1, and explicitly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3.
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)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
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