dismissedAPR302024_01B52032024-04-30 · 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 intended to operate a consultancy company providing fraud investigation, internal controls, and loss prevention services to small- and medium-sized U.S. businesses.
Field: fraud and loss prevention consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found, and the AAO agreed, that the Petitioner qualified as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“it does not provide insight into the Petitioner's plan to operate a consultancy company specializing in fraud risk and prevention or show how this specific endeavor would have a potential prospective impact of national importance”
“the letters do not sufficiently demonstrate the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
“The plan does not, however, provide of the basis of these projections, nor are the numbers corroborated by probative evidence”
“The Petitioner has not provided independent evidence or otherwise explained how his company would have a prospective national impact on the field of fraud risk and prevention or an economy of any scale”
“It is not clear how a business of the size and scope described in the business plan would positively impact a given region”
“that reasoning was not based on any objective evidence related to his specific proposed endeavor to operate a consultancy company”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- other · discounted
“it does not provide insight into the Petitioner's plan to operate a consultancy company specializing in fraud risk and prevention”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not sufficiently demonstrate the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“The plan does not, however, provide of the basis of these projections, nor are the numbers corroborated by probative evidence”
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 not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
1,358coded 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 prongs 2 and 3, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for declining to reach unnecessary alternative issues; notes letters of recommendation about job experience relate to prong 2, not prong 1.
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. 103.5
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
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