dismissedAPR282025_02B52032025-04-28 · 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, a human resources management consultant, proposed to operate her own HR consulting company advising companies—particularly in the oil and gas industry—on organizational structure, recruitment, employee well-being, and productivity optimization.
Field: human resources management consulting (oil and gas industry) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not establish its national importance.”
“The Petitioner submitted an ambiguous array of potential prospective impacts leaving question as to the likelihood that her proposed human resources consulting company would have national importance.”
“the Petitioner claims of national importance appear largely based on the asserted importance of the oil and gas industry, rather than her specifically proposed endeavor.”
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact to the field have little probative value.”
“The Petitioner's business plan reflected an investment of just under $14,000 in the new consulting business, leaving uncertainty regarding its potential prospective national economic impact”
“the expert opinion does not describe the specifics of the solutions the Petitioner did, or would provide, such as the human resources systems she would integrate”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“provided little objective support for these bold assertions, such as by providing credible business plans and projections”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the expert opinion does not describe the specifics of the solutions the Petitioner did, or would provide”
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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
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
The AAO noted the expert letter introduced an unsupported claim that the Petitioner would use AI in her HR practice, a claim appearing nowhere else in the record, undermining the letter's credibility. The AAO expressly declined to reach prong three given the dispositive prong-one failure.
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 Ho
- 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