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 operate her own architecture and interior design firm in Massachusetts, serving individuals and businesses across the U.S.
Field: architecture · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“However, the Petitioner does not sufficiently explain how she plans to achieve these staffing targets and revenue projections.”
“Without sufficient evidence regarding the projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to her future work”
“although an individual's experience, qualifications, contributions, and achievements are material, they are misplaced in the context of the first Dhanasar prong.”
“The Petitioner, however, has not shown that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for the United States.”
“We are also not persuaded by the Petitioner's intention to operate her proposed endeavor within a HUB Zone since the Petitioner has not adequately established what parameters the SBA considers when it establishes HUBZones.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“The Petitioner does not sufficiently explain how she plans to achieve these staffing targets and revenue projections.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“The Petitioner has not adequately established what parameters the SBA considers when it establishes HUBZones.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · ignored
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
Notable
The AAO devoted a lengthy footnote to explaining SBA HUBZone eligibility criteria, questioning whether the Petitioner (as sole non-U.S.-citizen owner) would even qualify for the program she cited as evidence of national importance.
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-
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to substantiate national importance: job creation/revenue claims unexplained, HUBZone relevance unproven, and evidence focused on personal qualifications rather than endeavor's broader impact.
Support economic-impact projections with concrete methodology/evidence and tie the endeavor itself—not personal credentials—to a demonstrable, broad-scale national effect.
vague
economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · field_advancement · geographic_or_shortage_area
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