dismissedJUL262024_04B52032024-07-26 · 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, an entrepreneur with an accounting background, intended to open and operate a business and managerial consulting firm assisting U.S. companies with financial decisions, operational efficiency, sales, and profitability.
Field: business and managerial consulting / accounting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified for underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional; this was not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the cited impact is speculative and is not supported by specific forecasts ofjobs that will be created because of the Petitioner's specific endeavor.”
“the Dhanasar framework instructs us to evaluate the impact of the specific proposed endeavor, rather than the field or industry generally.”
“he has not shown that the company's future staffing levels, business activity, associated tax revenue, and financial initiatives stand to provide substantial economic benefits in Florida or Texas or in the United States generally.”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his clientele to impact the consulting industry”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the cited impact is speculative and is not supported by specific forecasts of jobs that will be created because of the Petitioner's specific endeavor”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“As they do not contain details of when the Petitioner achieved the listed benchmarks, we are unable to determine their relevance”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the Dhanasar framework instructs us to evaluate the impact of the specific proposed endeavor, rather than the field or industry generally”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“does not specifically analyze by what measure the listed projections are significant in Florida, Texas, or nationally”
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
AAO discounted appellate letters of support because they postdated filing (written in late 2023 for a 2022-filed petition) and lacked timing details tying claimed benchmarks to the filing date.
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 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