dismissedFEB252020_02B52032020-02-25 · 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 healthcare and life sciences management specialist, proposed to help life sciences companies commercialize inventions, bring innovative technologies to the U.S. market, and provide consulting and technology transfer services in the healthcare/life sciences industries.
Field: healthcare and life sciences management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“be limited to his employer(s) and their clients, or to his clients”
“not shown to impact the Petitioner's listed fields more broadly”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employer and its clientele and stakeholders”
“the record does not include evidence of the Petitioner's upcoming projects in the United States, or other information about the specific entrepreneurial work”
“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- other · discounted
“the issue here is not the broader implications of the Petitioner's employers or clients' product development work”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“does not include evidence of the Petitioner's upcoming projects in the United States”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
2,589coded 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 expressly credited the endeavor with 'substantial merit' but found national importance lacking, illustrating the split analysis within prong 1 itself; also notes each stated reason is an independent alternate basis for dismissal even though only prong 1 was substantively reached.
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.
- INA 203(b)(2)
- INA 291
- 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