dismissedJAN082024_01B52032024-01-08 · 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 financial manager, proposed to continue his career as a financial manager and consultant, including assisting small businesses.
Field: financial management/consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the evidence on record does not sufficiently show that the proposed endeavor activities would create national or global implications in the field, extending beyond the businesses that would employ his services”
“we determined that the record does not support the Petitioner's claims of substantial economic effects to the U.S. regional or national economy through job creation or tax revenues”
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“the SBA article does not discuss any details relating to the Petitioner's specific endeavor and its impact other than that his endeavor is in the field of assisting small businesses”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“this reference letter illustrates progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor and supports the second prong of Dhanasar, not whether the endeavor is of national importance under the first prong”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the evidence does not establish that his endeavor has implications beyond the proposed business and its business partners, alliances, and/or clients or customers to impact the industry or field more broadly”
AAO decision text - resume experience · ignored
“the Petitioner does not make any substantive arguments as to how the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional or how our prior decision erred as a matter of law or policy”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the SBA article does not discuss any details relating to the Petitioner's specific endeavor and its impact other than that his endeavor is in the field of assisting small businesses”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
2,501coded 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 Director's alleged failure to fully consider evidence violated the Fourth Amendment; AAO declined to address constitutionality arguments, citing lack of jurisdiction. AAO noted an attempted attorney appearance (Form G-28) was improperly filed, so it treated the Petitioner as self-represented despite apparent counsel involvement.
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)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- Matter of L-A-C-
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