dismissedJUL082024_11B52032024-07-08 · 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, a health auditor, proposed to establish a consulting firm and develop an audit model to identify causes of labor absenteeism, prevent work-related illnesses and safety hazards, and improve occupational health of workers at U.S. companies.
Field: occupational health and safety auditing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“these articles and reports provide a general overview of the field of occupational health and safety in workplaces and do not discuss the specific nature of the Petitioner' endeavor”
“Merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”
“the record lacks objective evidence to demonstrate that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from her business would have "significant potential to employ U.S. workers"”
“the Petitioner has not offered independent and corroborating evidence to support the basis of the financial and staffing projections in her business plan”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“do not discuss the Petitioner's future endeavor or special methodologies attributable to the Petitioner that would have broad impact”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner has not offered independent and corroborating evidence to support the basis of the financial and staffing projections in her business plan”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“provide a general overview of the field of occupational health and safety in workplaces and do not discuss the specific nature of the Petitioner's endeavor”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the record does not offer any supporting evidence as how such audit model or process has a broad impact in the field”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
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 explicitly declines to reach prongs 2 and 3, resting dismissal solely on prong 1; decision cites Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) regarding discretionary nature of NIW grants, an unusual circuit-court citation for an AAO decision.
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 Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution