dismissedJUL132023_04B52032023-07-13 · 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 work as a human resources manager for a company in the United States; on appeal she attempted to instead claim she would found and serve as CEO of her own HR consulting firm.

Field: human resources management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

Foreign degree evaluation did not establish a U.S. bachelor's equivalent until 2020 via a postgraduate certificate, making it impossible to have accrued five years of post-baccalaureate progressive experience by filing; employer letters also failed to document five years of specialty experience, and one letter was from a co-worker rather than an employer as required by regulation.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner's statement includes generic descriptions of a human resources manager's duties, but does not shed light on her specific proposed endeavor”

“it is the substantial merit of the specific endeavor that must be established, not the merits of an entire field or industry”

“this evidence concerns the overall impact of the human resources and psychology fields in general, and does not show that the Petitioner's work for a single company in the United States would have broader implications”

“it is insufficient to show that the potential prospective impact of this endeavor would have the sort of potential to employ U.S. workers or other positive economic effects that would rise to the level of national importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

degree · discounted
“does not conclude that it is a foreign degree equivalent to a United States bachelor's degree as required under the regulation”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“letters from her former employers do not document at least five years of work experience in the specialty”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“submitted not from the Petitioner's former employer, as required by the regulation”
AAO decision text
motion resubmission · ignored
“the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on appeal”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“cannot retroactively establish eligibility”
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
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

1,358coded 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 Petitioner attempted on appeal to materially change her proposed endeavor from being an employed HR manager to founding and serving as CEO of her own consulting firm; the AAO rejected this under Matter of Izummi as an impermissible material change and refused to accept the new business plan and other evidence as first submitted on appeal, citing Matter of Soriano and Matter of Obaigbena. Although the threshold EB-2 classification failure was independently dispositive, the AAO nonetheless proceeded to also analyze and reject prong 1 of Dhanasar, declining to reach prongs 2 and 3.

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. 103.2(b)(1)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
Matter of Izummi
Matter of L-A-C-
Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer