dismissedJAN282025_02B52032025-01-28 · motion_reconsider · 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 operate a company in Florida providing human resources and marketing communications services, projecting to hire up to eight employees and generate increasing sales revenue over five years.
Field: human resources and marketing communications · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that her company's future staffing levels and business activity would provide substantial economic benefits in Florida or the United States.”
“she did not offer sufficient evidence to show that the area where her company operates is economically depressed, that she would employ a significant population of workers”
“she has not carried her burden to show that her proposed endeavor has a significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects”
“the Petitioner does not point to specific examples of what research was purportedly ignored or explain how that evidence would have demonstrated her proposed endeavor's national importance, as opposed to the importance of her field in general.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner's business plan anticipated her company would hire eight employees by the end of year five and projected sales of $202,720 in year one increasing to $547,254 in year five”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
- motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner submits evidence that we previously considered in our prior decision”
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
This is the third AAO proceeding (appeal, combined motion, then standalone motion to reconsider). The AAO declined to reach prongs 2 and 3, finding prong 1 (national importance) dispositive. The Petitioner raised APA arbitrary-and-capricious arguments and cited State Farm, which the AAO rejected by invoking Lingeswaran. The motion to reopen component was not separately contested by the Petitioner and was therefore not addressed on the merits.
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