dismissedJUL182024_09B52032024-07-18 · 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, an HR professional, proposed to found her own human resources consulting agency in Pennsylvania serving small and medium-sized businesses, with planned expansion into New Jersey and Maryland.
Field: human resources consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the growth and importance of an industry is not sufficient to meet the national importance requirement under the Dhanasar framework”
“she has not identified any specific human resources consulting engagements for which she plans to offer services”
“The Petitioner's financial and staffing projections in the business plan and other supporting documentation are contradictory”
“These inconsistencies cast doubt on the Petitioner's assertions regarding the economic effects of her business and her position within it”
“the Petitioner's reliance on her professional experience and professional achievements to establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor is misplaced”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“These inconsistencies cast doubt on the Petitioner's assertions regarding the economic effects of her business and her position within it.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“The letter makes general assertions regarding the Petitioner's endeavor to improve the operations of small to medium sized enterprises without identifying a specific enterprise.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's reliance on her professional experience and professional achievements to establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor is misplaced”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“the growth and importance of an industry is not sufficient to meet the national importance requirement under the Dhanasar framework”
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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
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 highlighted internal inconsistencies as undermining credibility: the business plan's job-creation figures changed from 16 full-time/74 part-time/14 contractor positions to '13 direct jobs' without explanation, and while the Petitioner claimed to be the business's primary owner, the plan showed her spouse holding 90% of shares to her 10%.
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
- 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