dismissedFEB032025_01B52032025-02-03 · combined · 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 an EB-2 national interest waiver based on a consulting-type business serving private clients, later supplementing his claim with evidence of pursuing a military career, without showing impact beyond his own business.

Field: unspecified consulting/business field, later pursuing military career · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“did not provide sufficient evidence that demonstrated that his proposed endeavor extends beyond his business and his future clients to impact the field, any other industries, or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”

“Although the Petitioner claims he wishes to pursue a career with the military, this evidence alone does not demonstrate that his proposed endeavor has national importance.”

“the Petitioner's contentions without any supporting documentation, is not sufficient evidence to establish his claim that his work has influenced his industry or field.”

“his brief provides no analysis of how these articles provide new facts such that they have the potential to change the decision's outcome.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

resume experience · discounted
“did not provide supporting evidence to indicate the specific work he did for all of these clients”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“this evidence alone does not demonstrate that his proposed endeavor has national importance.”
AAO decision text
media · discounted
“is not sufficient evidence to establish his claim that his work has influenced his industry or field.”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“none of the articles or reports address the specifics of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner has not presented new facts that overcomes our prior decision to dismiss the appeal.”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Citations insufficient · p1 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

271coded 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

The AAO decided the case solely on Dhanasar prong 1, expressly reserving prongs 2 and 3 as unnecessary under INS v. Bagamasbad. The petitioner submitted a military enlistment age-waiver memorandum and recruiting letter as evidence of a prospective military career, which the AAO found irrelevant to the national importance of his originally proposed endeavor.

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. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
Matter of Coelho
Matter of O-S-G-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer