dismissedDEC272023_02B52032023-12-27 · 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 sought to work in the U.S. as a human resources and marketing communications specialist through her own company, providing HR analysis, project management, and organizational communication services to small and medium-sized businesses.
Field: human resources and marketing communications · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found, and AAO did not dispute, that the Petitioner qualified as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her employees and her company's customers to enhance societal welfare on a broader scale indicative of national importance.”
“The Petitioner 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 acknowledge that the field ofhuman resource is important; however, this is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”
“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or will create a broad impact without providing evidence to corroborate such claims.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“she has not presented evidence indicating that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from her undertaking would reach the level of substantial positive economic effects”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
- contract revenue · discounted
“the evidence does not suggest how these benefits would reach the field of human resource management/communication overall”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
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
AAO explicitly declines to reach prongs 2 and 3 despite the Director having ruled against the Petitioner on all three prongs; dismissal rests solely on prong 1 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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 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