dismissedDEC122023_03B52032023-12-12 · 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, a business and financial analyst, planned to launch his own company, P-E- LLC, providing financial planning, investment, tax, bookkeeping, and accounting advisory services to individuals and companies investing in the U.S. and abroad, centered on an 'Investment Easy Project.'

Field: business and financial analysis / financial advisory services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner also submitted generic and unsupported assertions regarding the potential prospective impact of his proposed endeavor.”

“The Petitioner vaguely stated that his proposed "Easy Investment Project" would "combine the work and effort of other units," a generic statement that could apply to almost any financial situation within any company or industry.”

“The generic reports and articles provided by the Petitioner do little to corroborate that his proposed endeavor would have a potential prospective impact on a national level.”

“the Petitioner's experience and knowledge in and of itself is not relevant to demonstrating the national importance of his proposed endeavor”

“In sum, the Petitioner's business plan does not demonstrate that his proposed endeavor would, more likely than not, have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or generate other substantial positive economic effects.”

“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his proposed clientele”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner's business plan does not demonstrate that his proposed endeavor would, more likely than not, have significant potential to employ U.S. workers”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“none of these support letters discuss the potential prospective impact of the Petitioner's specifically proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“The generic reports and articles provided by the Petitioner do little to corroborate that his proposed endeavor would have a potential prospective impact on a national level”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's experience and knowledge in and of itself is not relevant to demonstrating the national importance of his proposed endeavor”
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
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

1,312coded 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

AAO expressly distinguishes experience/expertise evidence as relevant only to prong 2, not prong 1, and criticizes the petitioner for relying on generic industry-wide reports (FDI, GDP statistics) rather than endeavor-specific impact; also notes an internal contradiction where the petitioner admitted the industry was dominated by large firms yet claimed national 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.

Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer