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 planned to provide security consulting, self-defense training, and related managerial/tactical security services to U.S. individuals and organizations through her own California-based company.
Field: security consulting / tactical security operations management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we do not consider the indirect consequences of a petitioner' s activity when determining whether it is of national importance”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner' s proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her business and future clientele to impact the financial management field or U.S . economy more broadly”
“the Petitioner has not provided evidence of her $100,000 investment, nor has she provided an accounting of how this money will be allocated”
“the plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for the revenue and staffing projections, nor does it adequately explain how the revenue and staffing projections will be realized”
“she has not offered sufficient evidence that the area where the company operates is economically depressed, that she would employ a significant population of workers”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for the revenue and staffing projections”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“we do not consider the indirect consequences of a petitioner's activity when determining whether it is of national importance”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“the Petitioner has not provided evidence of her $100,000 investment”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
Petitioner argued the Director applied a stricter-than-preponderance standard; AAO rejected this, finding no specific instance identified. AAO also cited Dhanasar's own facts (petitioner's teaching activities) as an analogy for why the endeavor lacked broader field impact.
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 L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to show her endeavor's prospective impact extended beyond her own business/clientele to a level of national importance, relying on unsupported revenue/job projections and indirect national-security ripple effects.
Support projected economic or societal impact with concrete, verifiable evidence (investment proof, regional economic data) directly tied to the specific endeavor, not speculative or indirect claims.
moderate
national_security · economic_job_creation · public_health
person_focused
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