dismissedFEB012023_01B52032023-02-01 · 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 chief financial officer, founded a Florida-based financial consulting company in the U.S. and proposed to grow it, employing himself and financial analysts while providing financial advisory services to companies.

Field: financial consulting / finance · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not establish that the proposed endeavor will have substantial positive economic effects that would show national importance”

“it does not establish where he intends to employ 23 financial analysts”

“the business plan does not elaborate on the 416 indirect jobs a RIMS II calculation anticipates his financial consulting company will create, such as the types of jobs those would be and where they would be created”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on the "specific endeavor that the [noncitizen] proposes to undertake."”

“The record establishes that the proposed endeavor will benefit the Petitioner, as chief financial officer of his own company, and his company's clients”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“Without more detailed, credible evidence of the types of jobs that would be created and where the jobs would be located”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“other than generally stating that the proposed endeavor will improve their own income, they do not elaborate about substantial positive economic effects and where those effects would occur”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“Neither the article, the report, nor the press release discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and how it may have national importance.”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“repeat information provided in the Petitioner's business plan, summarize information about financial consulting in general”
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
Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
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

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 references the vacated NYSDOT precedent only in a footnote explaining the Dhanasar framework's origin; the case itself is analyzed entirely under Dhanasar (not legacy era). Petitioner's claim that ~300 pages of evidence were 'summarily dismissed' by the Director without analysis was rejected because Petitioner failed to explain how that evidence related to prong 1.

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-
Matter of NYSDOT

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer