dismissedJUL262023_02B52032023-07-26 · 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 sought to continue operating his small marketing consultancy business in Florida, advising U.S. companies on social-communications strategy to increase revenue and, as the business expanded, reach clients nationally.

Field: marketing / social communications consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employees and clients to impact either the marketing or communication industries more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”

“neither the opinion letters nor the business plan's projections concerning the business are supported by probative evidence to demonstrate the credibility of the growth estimates forecasted.”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

“This information does not speak to the specifics of the Petitioner's endeavor to demonstrate whether it is of national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“These letters do not, however, demonstrate how the successful performance of his job establishes the impact of his consultancy services in the U.S. at a national level.”
AAO decision text
media · discounted
“This information does not speak to the specifics of the Petitioner's endeavor to demonstrate whether it is of national importance.”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“neither the opinion letters nor the business plan's projections concerning the business are supported by probative evidence to demonstrate the credibility of the growth estimates forecasted.”
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
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

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 Petitioner raised a self-contradictory due-process argument, first accusing the Director of 'excessive scrutiny' and then, elsewhere in the same brief, of insufficiently detailed analysis; the AAO noted this inconsistency and found the Director had in fact reviewed the full record. Letters describing work performed during 'a global health emergency' post-filing were excluded as post-filing evidence under 8 C.F.R. 103.3(b)(1)/Katigbak.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
Matter of Katigbak
Matter of L-A-C-
Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer