dismissedAPR092024_02B52032024-04-09 · 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, a quality control analyst, proposed to open and operate a quality control consulting company serving the pet apparel industry.
Field: pet apparel quality control consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“These calculations were done using industry standards and the record does not show how her specific endeavor will create these jobs.”
“the staffing levels themselves are not substantial enough to rise to the level of national importance”
“the Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence to support these claims of her business' substantial economic benefits to the United States”
“the record does not establish the proposed endeavor will benefit more than the direct clients it will serve or that the Petitioner's business would impact the quality control industry more broadly”
“the industry reports and articles... also do not show national importance. It is the importance of the specific endeavor we must analyze and not the industry itself”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the record does not show how her specific endeavor will create these jobs”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“past experience is applicable to prong two analysis... but is not proof of national importance”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · ignored
“reiterates many of the same arguments the Petitioner makes that have been addressed above”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“they also do not show national importance. It is the importance of the specific endeavor we must analyze and not the industry itself”
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
- 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 explicitly declined to reach the exceptional-ability EB-2 classification issue and all other Dhanasar prongs, resting dismissal solely on national importance under prong one; cites Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) on discretionary nature of NIW.
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-
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