dismissedJAN312023_02B52032023-01-31 · 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 marketing professional with a background in tourism and hotel management, originally proposed to design marketing strategies for U.S. and multinational companies, then materially changed her proposal on RFE response to instead found and run her own marketing consulting company serving small businesses in Florida.
Field: marketing / tourism and hospitality · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO agreed Petitioner qualifies as an advanced-degree professional, correcting the Director's rationale to note she holds a bachelor's equivalent plus five years of progressive specialty experience rather than an advanced degree itself.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner has not established that her proposed endeavor would be of national importance, and she therefore does not meet the requirements of the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework.”
“the evidence does not show that her company and its activities would have economic impacts beyond the clients it would serve such that it will broader implications for businesses in the United States.”
“the employment and revenue projections included in the Petitioner's business plan are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how those projections will be realized.”
“Here, the Petitioner made significant changes to her proposed endeavor in responding to the RFE that changed its nature and structure”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established
“her degree in tourism and hotel management is not related to her proposed endeavor of designing market strategies for U.S. businesses.”
“although she claims to possess years of experience in the field of marketing, this experience is not well documented in the record.”
“Other letters from clients focus on the Petitioner's ability to plan travel activities and do not provide details regarding her work as a marketing professional.”
“This evidence does not establish that she is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the employment and revenue projections included in the Petitioner's business plan are not supported by details showing their basis”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“Other letters from clients focus on the Petitioner's ability to plan travel activities and do not provide details regarding her work as a marketing professional.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the dates of her employment do not match those stated in a letter from the General Director of this company.”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“her degree in tourism and hotel management is not related to her proposed endeavor of designing market strategies for U.S. businesses.”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“this evidence did not concern her specific endeavor of designing market strategies for U.S. companies.”
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
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- degree endeavor mismatch · p2 — the advanced degree is in a different field from the endeavor
- Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- 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 treated the Petitioner's RFE-response shift from employee marketing consultant to entrepreneur/CEO as an impermissible material change under Matter of Izummi, invalidating reliance on the new endeavor; also flagged unresolved ambiguity over which HUBZone sub-category her proposed business location fell into.
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of Izummi
- Poursina v. USCIS
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