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