dismissedJUL022024_06B52032024-07-02 · combined · 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 human resources manager, proposed to own and operate her own human resource consulting company in the United States.
Field: human resources consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the evidence did not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor of owning and operating a human resource consulting company”
“these industry articles and reports did not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
“the record did not establish the Petitioner's endeavor would result in substantial positive economic effects or otherwise result in broader implications to the field commensurate with national importance”
“the Petitioner's statement that her endeavor would "generate jobs" was not sufficient to establish its national importance, as she did not otherwise indicate how many employees she intended to hire”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“did not otherwise indicate how many employees she intended to hire, their respective salaries, or where her company would operate”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“these industry articles and reports did not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner submits a brief with no new evidence”
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
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 found the Petitioner mischaracterized its prior decision, falsely claiming it discussed an 'alleged material change' in circumstances; the AAO also clarified it never required a specific number of hires, only that the Petitioner failed to provide such supporting details.
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. 103.5(a)(1)(i)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- Matter of O-S-G-
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