dismissedJUL012024_07B52032024-07-01 · appeal · Nebraska 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 sought to establish and operate his own trade finance and operations management consulting company serving small and medium-sized U.S. businesses, with planned expansion into HUBZone locations in Minnesota, South Carolina, and Georgia.
Field: trade finance and operations management consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
“he did not elaborate on these projections or provide evidence supporting the need for these additional employees”
“these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved”
“the record does not establish that his company would have sufficient size or scope to substantially affect the nation's economy or employment rate”
“the issue here is not the national importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“The first prong of the Dhanasar framework, however, focuses on the proposed endeavor and not on the Petitioner's education and prior work in the field”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · ignored
- other · discounted
“the issue here is not the national importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“The national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands separate and apart from his education, skills, and job experience”
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
- 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
Petitioner argued the Director applied a heightened standard of proof; AAO rejected this, noting Petitioner failed to identify specific statements evidencing a heightened standard. AAO highlighted unrealistically low proposed wages (e.g., $1,500 annual salary for lawyers) as evidence undermining the business plan's credibility.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of L-A-C-
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