dismissedAPR162025_02B52032025-04-16 · appeal
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 sought to launch a company providing business valuation services to business owners, using AI matching algorithms to connect them with buyers and assisting American companies investing in Kazakhstan, while serving as the company's general manager and executive consultant.
Field: business valuation / financial consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS determined and AAO agreed the Petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner does not, however, demonstrate that her company's work would extend beyond individual client businesses, entrepreneurs or employees to impact her field more broadly in a manner commensurate with national importance.”
“The addendum provides no data or projections of how many businesses and individuals the Petitioner's company would assist or the amount of tax payments the company would stimulate.”
“These projections do not indicate the company has significant potential to employ U.S. workers.”
“These estimated profits do not indicate the company will have substantial positive economic effects in an industry whose revenue is estimated at seven billion dollars.”
“These articles address issues related to the Petitioner's company's proposed work, but do not discuss her specific proposed endeavor.”
“Our assessment of national importance does not focus on the importance of a field or issues affecting a field in general, but instead "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“The addendum's assertions alone do not establish the potential prospective impact of the Petitioner's company.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“these letters provide information relevant to the second Dhanasar prong, they do not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“These articles address issues related to the Petitioner's company's proposed work, but do not discuss her specific proposed endeavor.”
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 →
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
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