dismissedFEB152024_07B52032024-02-15 · 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 open and operate a financial management consulting, advisory, and training company in Florida, offering services in financial planning, control, reporting, risk assessment, and auditing.
Field: financial management consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the value of small businesses, financial management services, immigrant entrepreneurship, or the Petitioner's general occupation”
“The letter from J-W-B- does not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence”
“these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved”
“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims”
“she has not demonstrated that her company's future staffing levels and business activity stand to provide substantial economic benefits in Florida or the United States”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national"”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the relevant question is not the value of small businesses, financial management services, immigrant entrepreneurship, or the Petitioner's general occupation”
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
1,312coded 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 explicitly declined to reach the third prong as unnecessary given the dispositive failure on prong one, citing Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the proposition that agencies need not decide unnecessary issues.
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.
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers