dismissedAPR092025_02B52032025-04-09 · 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 sales manager with experience in duty-free and travel retail, proposed to either work as a district manager for his foreign employer's U.S. operations or to establish a U.S. consulting company advising businesses on expanding into the Latin American duty-free retail market.
Field: duty-free and travel retail sales/consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has established that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the record does not establish its national importance”
“the Petitioner submitted conflicting proposed endeavors leaving uncertainty as to the potential prospective national impact of his asserted consulting company”
“The Petitioner also asserted a confusing array of generic business plans leaving substantial ambiguity as to the potential prospective impact”
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact to the field have little probative value”
“he has not provided sufficient explanation of the prospective national impact directly attributable to his proposed work”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner did not present sufficiently clear and credible business plans to support that his proposed endeavor would have a potential prospective national impact”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“it is not clear how this increase in tax revenue, even if sufficiently supported, would represent a meaningful national level impact”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“a petitioner's expertise and record of success are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”
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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
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 cited Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) in a footnote regarding the discretionary nature of NIW grants, and emphasized the Petitioner's inconsistent proposed endeavors (job offer as district manager vs. own consulting company) as undermining national importance analysis.
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)
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution