dismissedAPR242025_01B52032025-04-24 · 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 operate a contact center and telemarketing services company through her LLC, offering outsourcing solutions such as customer inquiry, call, email, and chat support, including to federal government clients.
Field: contact center / telemarketing services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS determined and AAO agreed Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; not contested on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“SCOPS determined the Petitioner did not establish that her work would extend beyond her company and its clients to impact her field more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”
“The Petitioner submitted articles that discuss these issues, but do not address her specific proposed endeavor.”
“Our assessment of national importance does not focus on the importance of a field or related issues in general, but instead "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
“These projections do not indicate that the Petitioner's company has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or would have other substantial positive economic effects commensurate with national importance.”
“However, the record does not establish that any of these services are unique, innovative, or otherwise have national or global implications in the call center industry.”
“While relevant to the Petitioner's work, these articles do not discuss her proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“These projections do not indicate that the Petitioner's company has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or would have other substantial positive economic effects commensurate with national importance.”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“these articles do not discuss her 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
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- 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
- INA 203(b)(2)
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