dismissedJAN252025_01B52032025-01-25 · 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, a quality engineer, initially proposed to work in quality management, layout, and engineering methods, but clarified in response to an RFE that she intended to create a consultancy company providing quality engineering services to organizations.
Field: quality engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“Neither the opinion letters nor the business plan's projections concerning the business are supported by probative evidence to demonstrate the credibility of the growth estimates forecasted.”
“The business plan does not demonstrate that any benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar.”
“the expert opinion restates large portions of the claims the Petitioner made concerning the national importance of the proposed endeavor, but she does not add sufficient analysis or corroborating details”
“it is not clear how a business of the size and scope described will impact and positively affect the region in which these individuals will be located.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“not supported by probative evidence to demonstrate the credibility of the growth estimates forecasted”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“restates large portions of the claims the Petitioner made ... but she does not add sufficient analysis or corroborating details”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's past record of success in her industry is immaterial to the business she intends to operate”
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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- 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
The AAO dismissed solely on the national importance prong and expressly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3, even though the Director had found the Petitioner well-positioned to advance the endeavor; the Petitioner also unsuccessfully argued the Director applied the wrong evidentiary standard.
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.
- Flores v. Garland
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