dismissedDEC112023_01B52032023-12-11 · 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 planned to work as a human resources consultant in the U.S., focusing on strategic HR planning, labor relations, and organizational development, and intended to set up her own consulting company.
Field: human resources consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualifies as an individual of exceptional ability; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the [P]etitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects.”
“Simply working in a field where there is a shortage falls short of showing that the [Petitioner's] proposed endeavor has a prospective national impact.”
“the Petitioner did not elaborate on the location in which her consulting company would operate, the number of employees she intended to hire to work for her company, the wages she would pay those workers, and other details regarding her proposed endeavor.”
“The Petitioner's proposed endeavor of founding and operating a human resources consulting company appears to benefit the Petitioner, as the owner and operator of the consulting company, and the potential clients who would request and receive her consulting services.”
“the record does not establish where the Petitioner's company's clients would operate, the number of workers those clients would employ as a result of the Petitioner's company's human resources consulting services”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- other · discounted
“do not discuss the Petitioner, the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
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 erroneously found the second Dhanasar prong met without addressing the first or third; the AAO nonetheless dismissed the appeal solely on prong 1, expressly reserving opinion on prongs 2 and 3.
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 Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution