dismissedAUG012024_10B52032024-08-01 · 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, a business strategist, proposed to provide accounting, finance, tax planning, fraud-detection, and business-management consulting services to individual clients, including development of an anti-fraud monitoring/tax software.

Field: business strategy/accounting, finance, and taxation consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner has not explained logistically how she would act in these various and wide-ranging capacities for several clients.”

“she has not described how her employment as a business specialist will have a broader impact on the field beyond the individual clients she intends to partner with”

“It is not the importance of the field that determines an endeavor's national importance, but rather how the specific endeavor will impact the field on a level commensurate with national importance.”

“she has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation”

“it does not illuminate how the Petitioner's individual assistance to her clients will scale to have such an economic impact”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“Contentions require support to underpin them, as assertions themselves do not constitute evidence.”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“The Petitioner has not explained logistically how she would act in these various and wide-ranging capacities for several clients.”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner does not explain how this evidence is relevant to national importance as it points to the Petitioner's past accomplishments, training, and experiences”
AAO decision text
certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner does not explain how this evidence is relevant to national importance as it points to the Petitioner's past accomplishments, training, and experiences”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the advisory opinion is of little probative value as Dr. _____'s evaluation of national importance focuses on Brazilian investment in the United States”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

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
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

2,589coded 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 decision contains an apparent internal drafting inconsistency: early in the text the AAO states 'we will sustain the appeal,' but the final ORDER and Conclusion state the appeal is dismissed based on failure of Dhanasar prong 1; the dismissal order controls as the operative outcome.

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.

Flores v. Garland
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer