dismissedFEB052026_06B52032026-02-05 · appeal · SCOPS 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 proposed to operate a technology-driven human resources consulting business serving small and medium-sized enterprises, offering services such as talent acquisition, retention, compliance, and workforce productivity solutions using platforms like BambooHR, Workable, and TalentLMS.

Field: human resources consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS determined and AAO agreed that the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; threshold EB-2 was not at issue on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not show through supporting documentation how her specific services stand to sufficiently extend beyond her prospective clients, to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more broadly”

“the plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for the revenue and staffing projections, nor does it adequately explain how the revenue and staffing projections will be realized.”

“the Petitioner must establish the national importance of her business rather than the importance of the human resources industry or entrepreneurism.”

“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact to the field have little probative value.”

“the Petitioner did not specify what specific economically depressed areas her proposed services would impact, or the jobs or revenues that would be generated in these areas.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“the plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for the revenue and staffing projections, nor does it adequately explain how the revenue and staffing projections will be realized.”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“The Petitioner's contentions and submissions of industry articles and reports relates to the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor rather than the national importance.”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the Petitioner does not elaborate on the additional jobs a RIMS II calculation anticipates her company will create, such as the type of jobs those would be, the breakdown of part-time versus full-time positions”
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
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

SCOPS had already conceded substantial merit of the endeavor, so the sole contested issue on appeal was national importance under prong 1. The AAO specifically noted that RIMS II economic modeling was submitted but found it insufficient without detail on job types, full-time vs. part-time breakdown, and geographic location of projected indirect jobs. The business name was redacted with a (b)(6) mark in the decision text.

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show the HR consulting business's impact extends beyond its own clients to the industry or economy at a level rising to national importance; projections were unsupported/generic.

Transferable lesson

For entrepreneurial NIW petitions, substantiate job/revenue projections with a credible methodology and specify geographic/economic impact, not just aggregate figures or industry-level claims.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · geographic_or_shortage_area

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer