dismissedAPR172023_05B52032023-04-17 · 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, an Argentine professor of economics, proposed to work in the United States as a 'special business consultant' assisting small and medium-sized Latino-owned businesses to move from an 'embryonic' to a 'mature' stage using training techniques, programs, and restructuring methods.
Field: business consulting / economics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not sufficiently articulated what his proposed endeavor would be in the United States”
“The Petitioner provided vague and varying statements related to his proposed endeavor.”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his clientele”
“The Petitioner has also not demonstrated that the endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers”
“the Petitioner mentioned a proposed company one time on the record, but did not detail its future staffing levels, business activity, and tax revenue”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“provided little detail and documentation regarding this proposed new business, its specific plans, staffing levels, or other such probative information”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“provided vague and varying statements related to his 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
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
1,358coded 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 Petitioner ambiguously described both an employment role ('special business consultant') and, elsewhere, a self-owned consulting company, but the AAO found this inconsistency contributed to the vagueness of the endeavor. All analysis was resolved on prong 1 alone; prongs 2 and 3 were expressly reserved.
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.
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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