dismissedAPR152024_06B52032024-04-15 · 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 planned to open a consulting and advisory company helping U.S. small and medium-sized enterprises improve marketing, accounting, and organizational structuring, while occasionally presenting her work at conferences.

Field: business consulting for small and medium enterprises · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner has not provided evidence demonstrating that her proposed business activities would operate on such a scale as to rise to a level of national importance.”

“she has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”

“the Petitioner has not shown that her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her company and its future clientele to impact her field”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“the record does not show that this past experience renders her well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor aimed at operating a business consulting and advisory company”

“This evidence, however, does not reflect a level of interest from potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals demonstrating that she is well positioned”

“the Petitioner has not shown that her track record of running a business, business plan for future activities, and progress towards achieving her company's goals render her well positioned”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“This evidence, however, does not reflect a level of interest from potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner has not shown that her track record ... business plan for future activities, and progress ... render her well positioned”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the relevant question is not the value of small businesses or government initiatives that support them”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“the record does not show that this past experience renders her well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
certification membership · discounted
“the record does not show that this past experience renders her well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish

2,501coded 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

The AAO expressly labeled its prong 1 and prong 2 findings as independent and alternate bases for dismissal and declined to reach the third prong, citing Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C-. The Director had not addressed prong 1 or the underlying EB-2 classification, yet the AAO proceeded to analyze prong 1 itself rather than remand.

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.

Chen v. INS
Flores v. Garland
INA 203(b)(2)
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer