dismissedJAN252024_03B52032024-01-25 · 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 proposed to own and manage a Florida-based consulting company providing in-house and outsourced management, operations, financial analysis, business process outsourcing, and related services to U.S. and international clients.
Field: business/management consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found the Petitioner qualified as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; not contested on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not show through supporting documentation how his specific consulting services stand to sufficiently extend beyond his prospective clients to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more broadly”
“the Petitioner must establish the national importance of his business rather than the importance of consulting, small businesses, entrepreneurism, and immigration.”
“the plan does not provide sufficient detail of the basis for these projections, or adequately explain how these sales and staffing targets will be realized.”
“the record does not indicate that the location of the business and its proposed operations is an economically depressed area.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the plan does not provide sufficient detail of the basis for these projections, or adequately explain how these sales and staffing targets will be realized.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the support letters and the rest of the record do not document any impact the Petitioner has had or will have on the broader field of consulting beyond his immediate professional circle.”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“While the agreements are supporting evidence of his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner did not sufficiently establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor”
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
- 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
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 expressly reserved opinion on prong 3 despite Petitioner briefing it, citing Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for declining to reach unnecessary alternative 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.
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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