dismissedJUL082024_07B52032024-07-08 · 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 proposed to own and operate a mediation and conciliation business in the United States, offering dispute resolution services as an alternative to litigation.
Field: conflict resolution / mediation and dispute resolution · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we found the Petitioner did not demonstrate how her proposed endeavor of owning and operating a mediation and conciliation business largely influences the field and rises to the level of national importance.”
“the forecasted sales did not establish the benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar.”
“the endeavor's job creation potential is a nominal economic benefit at best and falls far short of showing the endeavor has national importance”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the foreign national will work.”
“the Petitioner has not explained how offering mediation services-while continuing to charge a fee-will have a broad impact within the mediation field.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the forecasted sales did not establish the benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“those attributes are better considered under other Dhanasar requirements rather than under the first prong”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“she offered those same arguments and we considered them when we dismissed the appeal.”
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
This is a combined motion to reopen/reconsider following a prior AAO appellate dismissal; the AAO focused heavily on rejecting the Petitioner's interpretation of the word 'potential' in Dhanasar, holding that mere nominal job-creation potential (26 jobs vs. 7,600 industry workers, ~0.33%) does not satisfy national importance.
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
- Flores v. Garland
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