dismissedDEC122023_06B52032023-12-12 · 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 Colombian-trained lawyer and tax law specialist, proposed to open her own company in the United States offering legal and tax preparation consulting services to small and medium-sized U.S. firms and individuals.
Field: tax law / legal consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Director determined, and we agree, that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of her proposed endeavor”
“The professional plan is very limited and does not include a marketing strategy, staffing or personnel projections, or any financial projections.”
“we find the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her customers to impact the tax or business law field”
“the Petitioner reiterates the importance of the industry or profession, and her role as a lawyer and tax law specialist within the proposed company; however, these factors do not sufficiently establish the national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“The professional plan is very limited and does not include a marketing strategy, staffing or personnel projections, or any financial projections.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not address the national importance of her proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“much of the content of the expert opinion letter is lacking in relevance and probative value with respect to the national importance”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's expertise acquired through her employment relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
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
1,358coded 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 footnote flags a possible eligibility problem with the underlying EB-2 classification (insufficient post-baccalaureate experience given bachelor's degree date) but expressly reserves the issue under Bagamasbad since the appeal fails on prong 1 regardless.
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
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of Caron Int'l
- Matter of D-R-
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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