dismissedJUL012024_09B52032024-07-01 · 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 found a company offering modular nutrition and food-safety consulting services—including staff training, menu monitoring, and hygiene inspections—to schools and supermarkets in the United States.
Field: nutrition and food safety consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“the prospective expansion of the business is not supported by details showing how it will be achieved”
“the projected job creation and revenues are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved”
“she has not shown that her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her company and its clientele to impact her field, nutrition, or the U.S. economy more broadly”
“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
“the projected job creation and revenues are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
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 explicitly declines to reach prongs 2 and 3, resting dismissal solely on national importance under prong 1, citing Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for declining unnecessary findings.
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
- 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