dismissedDEC052024_06B52032024-12-05 · 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 develop a finance and accounting consulting services firm headquartered in Florida with additional business units in Georgia and California, offering bookkeeping, tax preparation, payroll, and related services.

Field: accounting and finance consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner did not demonstrate how hiring 44 employees would equate to the potential to significantly hire U.S. workers”

“the record did not show how the benefits to the national economy from the proposed endeavor would reach the level of substantial positive economic effects”

“the relevant question discussed in Dhanasar is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession, rather it is the importance of the proposed endeavor”

“the Petitioner did not establish the proposed endeavor would have broader implications in her field, or that the proposed endeavor has implications beyond her company, business partners, alliances, or unidentified clients”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“the relevant question discussed in Dhanasar is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession”
AAO decision text
contract revenue · discounted
“did not demonstrate that the proposed endeavor would have substantial positive economic effects or the potential to significantly hire U.S. workers”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the relevant question discussed in Dhanasar is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession”
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

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

The Director found threshold EB-2 and prong 2 satisfied; AAO adopted and affirmed the Director's national importance analysis under Matter of Burbano rather than conducting fully independent analysis, and declined to reach prong 3 as unnecessary given the dispositive prong 1 failure.

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
Chen v. INS
Flores v. Garland
INA 203(b)(2)
Matter of E-M-
Matter of L-A-C-

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show the specific endeavor (not the accounting field generally) had national importance—no evidence of substantial economic effects, significant job creation, or broader implications beyond her own company/clients.

Transferable lesson

Tie projected impact (jobs, revenue, reach) explicitly to national-level significance with concrete data, not industry-wide statistics or personal qualifications alone.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer