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 Public Administration Expert in Sports and open a company organizing sports events, conferences, and trainings connecting American sports industry representatives with CIS-country athletes, coaches, and federations.
Field: sports administration/business · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the matter here is not whether these topics are nationally important”
“the Petitioner did not demonstrate how her business would largely influence the field and rise to the level of national importance”
“the Petitioner did not present any supporting evidence, corroborating the assertions and figures”
“the Petitioner did not establish the significance of this data to show that the benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
“the record does not demonstrate that, beyond the limited benefits provided to its prospective clients and employees, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has broader implications rising to the level of having national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner did not present any supporting evidence, corroborating the assertions and figures”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“these letters relate more to the second prong rather than the first prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - other · ignored
“we will not consider it for the first time on appeal”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the Petitioner did not establish the significance of this data to show that the benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO declined to consider new evidence (investor letters) submitted for the first time on appeal, citing Matter of Soriano; letters of intent were characterized as relevant to prong 2 rather than prong 1.
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
- Matter of L-A-C-
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to show the specific endeavor's impact extended beyond prospective clients/employees to the broader field or U.S. economy at a nationally significant scale.
Corroborate business plan projections with independent evidence and explicitly quantify/contextualize how projected jobs or revenue achieve national, not merely local, significance.
moderate
economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic
mixed
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