dismissedAPR262023_03B52032023-04-26 · 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, president and CEO of a sports nutrition company, sought to continue and expand her business marketing and selling dietary supplements (protein powder, fat-burner pills), a waist-shaping belt, and related fitness/beauty products in the United States.
Field: sports nutrition / wellness industry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“she did not submit a personal statement or other evidence describing the specific proposed endeavor she intends to undertake”
“the operation of a business in an industry or sector that is the subject of national initiatives is not sufficient, in and of itself, to establish the national importance of a specific endeavor”
“The business plan is very limited and does not include a marketing strategy, staffing or personnel projections, or any financial projections”
“these claims are not explained or corroborated by any other evidence in the record”
“none of the articles reflect the government's interest in promoting the use of the types of products the Petitioner's company sells”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“The business plan is very limited and does not include a marketing strategy, staffing or personnel projections, or any financial projections.”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the company's 2019 U.S. tax return indicates that it had no assets, income or operating expenses, and no additional financial documentation was provided”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“none of the articles reflect the government's interest in promoting the use of the types of products the Petitioner's company sells”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
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 expressly reserved analysis of Dhanasar prongs 2 and 3, dismissing the appeal solely on the ground that the proposed endeavor lacked national importance; the decision emphasizes that industry-level importance (nutrition/public health) cannot substitute for evidence of the specific endeavor's prospective impact.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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