dismissedAPR232024_05B52032024-04-23 · 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 process engineer, proposed to run a consulting company delivering business consultancy services to small and medium-sized U.S. companies and entrepreneurs to help them grow and improve performance.
Field: business consulting (process engineering background) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The record contains articles indicating the importance of the Petitioner's field, but these reports do not specifically address her proposed endeavor.”
“the record does not contain evidence demonstrating how these individual interactions impact the field more broadly”
“the business plan does not adequately support these projections of job and revenue creation”
“the plan does not explain how these forecasts were calculated, or adequately clarify how these projections will be realized”
“the Petitioner did not provide documentation to support these generalized statements that her consulting services will result in substantial economic growth on the level of national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan does not adequately support these projections of job and revenue creation”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the record does not contain evidence demonstrating how these individual interactions impact the field more broadly”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“these reports do not specifically address her proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“all the letters were dated after the filing of the petition”
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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
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 footnoted Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) to note that NIW grants are discretionary, joining the 9th, 11th, and D.C. Circuits; AAO declined to reach prongs 2 and 3, citing Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C-.
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.
- 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