dismissedAUG202024_01B52032024-08-20 · 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 Brazilian HR professional, proposed to create her own human resources consulting company in a HUBZone area of Florida, offering advisory services, HR policy implementation, and employee training to small and medium businesses.
Field: human resources consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“she has not identified any specific human resources consulting engagements for which she plans to offer services”
“the growth and importance of an industry is not sufficient to meet the national importance requirement under the Dhanasar framework”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the effects of her proposed endeavor extend beyond her business and her future clients to impact the field or any other industries or the U.S. economy more broadly”
“the record does not adequately establish that increased employment in these designated underutilized business zones would have positive economic effects commensurate with national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“The business plan does not demonstrate that the proposed endeavor offers benefits which extend beyond the community to impact business industry more broadly.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the authors did not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or meaningfully demonstrate how it would have national importance for the United States”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's reliance on her professional experience and professional achievements to establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor is misplaced”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the growth and importance of an industry is not sufficient to meet the national importance requirement under the Dhanasar framework”
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
- 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
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
AAO rejected the Petitioner's argument that basing the business in an SBA HUBZone supported national importance, noting the HUBZone program requires 51% U.S.-citizen ownership, which the Petitioner (a non-citizen sole owner) could not satisfy, making the HUBZone argument 'wholly irrelevant.'
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
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of E-M-
- 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