dismissedFEB252025_07B52032025-02-25 · 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, a business manager, proposed to operate a business administration consulting services company in Florida.
Field: business administration consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“Substantially impact job creation and economic growth, either regionally or nationally”
“Provide substantial economic benefits to Florida, the region, or the U.S. more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance”
“we correctly concluded the Petitioner had not adequately demonstrated that the potential prospective impact of her endeavor would rise to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the employment and financial projections from the business plan did not sufficiently demonstrate the endeavor would rise to the level of 'substantial positive economic effects'”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the Petitioner's skills, expertise, and abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“She does not, however, introduce any new evidence, or a new fact supported by documentary evidence”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- 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
Petitioner argued the AAO created an 'ultra vires requirement' by rephrasing Dhanasar's 'significant potential to employ U.S. workers' language into a stricter economic-impact standard; AAO rejected this as a misreading of its prior decision's illustrative reasoning rather than a new legal rule.
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)
- Matter of Coelho
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