dismissedJUL042024_01B52032024-07-04 · 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 sought to operate a business in New Jersey providing financial advice and business-formation training to entrepreneurs and microentrepreneurs, particularly women heads of household.
Field: finance / business consulting for entrepreneurs · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner's personal statements and the expert opinion do not meaningfully analyze how his proposed endeavor meets the national importance as defined in Dhanasar”
“Merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“the plan does not provide sufficient basis as to how the projected hiring of 15 foll-time employees and 15 independent contractors in five years demonstrate "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects"”
“the Petitioner did not provide corroborating information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to his activities”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“does not provide sufficient basis as to how the projected hiring... demonstrate significant potential to employ U.S. workers”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“did not address the endeavor's specific impact or special methodologies attributable to the Petitioner”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“provide background information on the field of finance... but do not discuss the Petitioner's specific endeavor and its impact with persuasive details”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“generally summarizes and reiterates the evidence previously submitted on record”
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
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 adopts and affirms the Director's decision under Matter of Burbano rather than conducting fully independent analysis; Petitioner's argument that letters were misapplied under prong 1 (rather than prong 2) was acknowledged as partially correct but deemed not legally prohibited or prejudicial.
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
- Buletini v. INS
- Chen v. INS
- Flores v. Garland
- 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