dismissedAUG072024_03B52032024-08-07 · 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.
Petitioner proposed to work as a consultant providing educational and training services to medical laboratory technicians, scientists, and institutions through her own consulting company, aiming to improve STEM and medical laboratory education.
Field: bioanalysis / medical laboratory science education and consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate the specialized consulting and educational services her company would offer would extend beyond a specific company, school, or other clientele”
“she does not explain and has not provided evidence showing how this would be accomplished or the scale of any potential economic impact her proposed endeavor may have”
“our focus is on the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake rather than the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not established she has skills, knowledge, or a record of success associated with starting an education-based consulting service”
“the record does not reflect the Petitioner has formal education related to curriculum development or teacher training, nor experience conducting these activities”
“The record does not show that the Petitioner has taken steps towards creating a legal entity for her consulting company”
“she has not provided any financial documents showing she possesses the funds she proposes to invest or that she has invested in the development of the company”
“the Petitioner has not provided probative evidence of any interest from potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals who seek her services”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate the specialized consulting and educational services her company would offer would extend beyond a specific company”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
- resume experience · discounted
“neither the Petitioner's curriculum vitae nor her employment letters ... reflect that she served in such supervisory positions”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“she has not provided any financial documents showing she possesses the funds she proposes to invest”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
- Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
- No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
- Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
2,501coded 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 withdrew the Director's finding that the endeavor was too vague, clarifying it as a consulting business, but still dismissed on national importance and well-positioned prongs; reserved prong three and the Director's substantial-merit finding as unnecessary to the 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.
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, an assistant professor of Arabic, proposed to continue teaching Levantine-Modern Standard Arabic to U.S.
- The Petitioner, a secondary school teacher, proposed to develop and implement an open educational resource program to ex
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a consulting company in Missouri to design and implement a nationally adaptable tea
- The Petitioner, an arts, drama, and music teacher and entrepreneur, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of excep
- The petitioner, a mathematics teacher with 17 years of experience, proposed to operate a company offering online math tu