dismissedJAN042024_03B52032024-01-04 · appeal · Nebraska 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 operate a New York business coaching company offering online and in-person courses focused on personal and professional development for women, alongside event management services.

Field: business coaching / female empowerment training · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“there was no evidence that the events and activities were provided through the Petitioner's business”

“the Petitioner's assertion that she is "a known expert service-provider" is not sufficient”

“the Petitioner did not provide supporting evidence demonstrating the existence of the methodology she claims she developed”

“the submitted business plan does not identify the anticipated start up costs for the Petitioner's new business”

“the authors of the letters do not indicate an intent to purchase any specific training or services outlined in the Petitioner's business plan”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“do not support the stated expansion plan”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“provide limited insight into her past employment because they address only ten short-term events”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“the record contains little evidence regarding her business in Russia and its ongoing operations”
AAO decision text
contract revenue · discounted
“insufficient to establish a significant level of demonstrated interest in the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“did not demonstrate that she is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish

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 reserved the first prong because the Director's own decision was internally inconsistent (finding national importance satisfied in one section, then undermining it in the second-prong analysis); AAO also declined to reach the third prong, resting dismissal solely on prong 2. Petitioner's appeal brief was faulted for failing to specifically contest the Director's findings, merely reasserting prior evidence.

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. 103.3
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
Matter of L-A-C-
Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer