dismissedAPR262024_06B52032024-04-26 · 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, an environmental manager, proposed to provide environmental health and safety consultancy services to U.S. companies through her own company, including designing and implementing systems to protect workers, the environment, and property.
Field: environmental management / environmental health and safety · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the overall importance of the industry in which the individual will work or the value of immigrant entrepreneurship”
“The letter from Dr. A-A- does not contain sufficient information and explanation... to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed work offers broader implications”
“Here, the Petitioner has not established that her proposed endeavor stands to impact or significantly reduce the claimed national shortage.”
“shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process”
“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims.”
“she did not elaborate on these projections or provide evidence supporting the need for these additional employees”
“these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the relevant question is not the overall importance of the industry in which the individual will work or the value of immigrant entrepreneurship”
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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
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 noted the Petitioner's company was formed after the petition's filing date and thus could not be considered under the material change/Katigbak doctrine; also rejected the worker-shortage argument by noting shortages are properly addressed through the labor certification process itself.
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 Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
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