dismissedAUG212023_01B52032023-08-21 · 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 proposed to direct her own newly incorporated management consulting startup in Florida, providing financial, HR, and operational advisory services to small and medium-sized U.S. businesses.
Field: business management consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner's description of the proposed endeavor appears to benefit her own startup business management consulting company and the clients to whom her company provides services.”
“the record does not elaborate on the nature or numerosity of clients; the extent to which their cash flows, sales, marketing shares, and revenues may increase”
“$861,824 divided among 30 employees is an average annual wage of $28,727 per worker.”
“the Petitioner's focus on appeal on her prior work experience-and internal company awards given to her during her prior work experience-with regard to the first Dhanasar prong is misplaced.”
“the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“The record does not establish how paying an average annual wage of $28,727 per worker ... is indicative of significant potential to employ U.S. workers”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they are immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's focus on appeal on her prior work experience ... with regard to the first Dhanasar prong is misplaced.”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“repeating on appeal verbatim assertions already in the record ... does not address how a subsequent decision may contain an error.”
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
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- 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
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
Neither the Director nor the AAO reached threshold EB-2 eligibility or prongs 2/3, resolving the case entirely on prong 1's national-importance requirement; AAO faulted petitioner for conflating personal work experience/awards (relevant to prong 2) with the endeavor's national importance (prong 1), and highlighted a business-plan wage calculation ($28,727/worker) as evidence undermining claimed economic 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.
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- 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