dismissedJUN032024_01B52032024-06-03 · 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 own and operate his own financial and accounting consulting services firm in the U.S., serving as CEO and head of consulting.
Field: financial and accounting consulting services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the provided industry reports do not discuss the proposed endeavor and therefore do not establish the endeavor's national importance”
“the Petitioner did not explain how he arrived at the revenue and job creation projections in his business plan, nor explained how he plans to realize those projections”
“the evidence does not show that the impact of the endeavor would extend beyond the Petitioner's organization and its clients to broadly impact the field of the endeavor”
“the Petitioner does not provide evidence showing that his work as the owner of a consulting firm would result in an impact of regional or national importance”
“The articles do not, however, discuss the proposed endeavor and thus they are not sufficient to demonstrate that the endeavor is likely to result in "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner did not explain how he arrived at the revenue and job creation projections in his business plan”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“The Petitioner's credentials and professional experience do not demonstrate the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“The articles do not, however, discuss the proposed endeavor”
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
- 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 adopted and affirmed the Director's decision on prong 1 rather than independently analyzing it, and expressly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3. Petitioner's HubZone-based job creation argument was raised below but abandoned on appeal.
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
- Chen v. INS
- 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