dismissedAPR252025_07B52032025-04-25 · 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 proposed to leverage her background in social work and community service management to found a company in Massachusetts providing urgent support services to vulnerable populations, including domestic violence prevention, immigrant integration, mental health, and public health initiatives.
Field: social work and community service management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner's general assertions in her statements and business plan, as well as those made in the expert opinion letter, regarding the contributions her proposed endeavor may make to her company's target audiences lack sufficient probative detail”
“the letters ofrecommendation and articles submitted by the Petitioner do not address the specific proposed endeavor or the services the Petitioner would provide through her company”
“the Petitioner's and expert's general assertions regarding the contributions the proposed endeavor will make to the national economy, and the unsupported projections in the business plan, are insufficient”
“the Petitioner does not establish that the revenue or number ofjobs created by her proposed endeavor would result in substantial positive economic effects”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the unsupported projections in the business plan, are insufficient to demonstrate the proposed endeavor is nationally important”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“do not address the specific proposed endeavor or the services the Petitioner would provide through her company”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“this evidence, however, relates to whether the Petitioner is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor rather than whether the proposed endeavor is nationally important”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“our focus in assessing national importance, however, is on the specific endeavor... rather than the importance of the profession or general nature of the issues”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the author claims generally that the Petitioner's company is projected to have a significant economic impact... could contribute to job creation”
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
- Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
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