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 serve as CEO/Entrepreneur-Investor of a U.S.-based company she co-owned, operating in the syringes and injection needle manufacturing industry, with plans to expand into multiple states and create direct and indirect jobs.
Field: syringes and injection needle manufacturing / business consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record has not sufficiently corroborated those figures”
“the record does not support this level of claimed direct employment”
“merely operating in one or two important industries is insufficient to establish that her proposed endeavor has national importance”
“This description is inconsistent with the proposed endeavor stated in the Petitioner's statement and the May 2022 business plan.”
“the relevant question is not the importance of a particular field in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“they fail to establish, or discuss, the national importance of her proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner has not explained how the business's projected revenue, cost, net profit, and net income figures were derived”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the record has not sufficiently corroborated those figures”
AAO decision text - resume experience · ignored
“relevant to the second prong of the Matter of Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
- Material change of endeavor · p1 — the endeavor described on appeal is not the one filed
Notable
The Petitioner's Form G-28 lacked a valid signature, so the AAO treated her as self-represented despite an attorney appearing to file the appeal. The AAO also noted an inconsistency between a recommendation letter describing the endeavor as an international business consulting firm and the Petitioner's own statement/business plan describing a syringes and injection needle manufacturing company, citing Matter of Ho on unexplained inconsistencies.
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 Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to prove national importance: unsupported job/revenue projections, inconsistent endeavor descriptions, and impact dwarfed by industry scale even if claims accepted arguendo.
Corroborate financial projections with clear methodology, keep endeavor description consistent across filings, and show impact scaled against the broader industry, not just raw numbers.
vague
economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic
person_focused
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