dismissedAPR082024_07B52032024-04-08 · 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 her own U.S. company providing financial management, data analytics, and consultancy services to small and medium-sized hospitality and tourism businesses.
Field: financial management consulting for hospitality and tourism industry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“However, while the Petitioner has established that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the record does not show it has national importance.”
“However, the evidence does not support a conclusion that her endeavor will directly result in broader implications to the field, beyond her immediate clients.”
“They do not discuss the direct potential impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or of the offerings outlined in her business plan.”
“the record does not establish her impact to the field beyond her immediate clients.”
“the business plan provides no explanation for the basis of these projections other than the explanation of her hourly rates for each service offering.”
“she has not explained how these proposed employment numbers and revenue will impact the area of intended operations”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan provides no explanation for the basis of these projections other than the explanation of her hourly rates”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the evidence does not establish broader implications from her work”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“much of the content of the expert opinion letters lack relevance with respect to 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
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- 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 agreed endeavor had substantial merit (business/entrepreneurialism) but found no national importance because impact was limited to immediate clients; declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 as dispositive under prong 1.
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 Caron Int'l
- Matter of D-R-
- 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