dismissedJUN042024_08B52032024-06-04 · 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 planned to operate her own HR consultancy firm in Florida, providing specialized advisory services (recruitment, performance evaluation, compensation, organizational design, etc.) to small and medium-sized companies.
Field: human resources consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not show it has national importance”
“the broader implications of her endeavor would not extend beyond her immediate clients to otherwise impact the field”
“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to her endeavor, the record does not show that benefits resulting from the Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
“the personnel to be hired would be subject to each project... as I develop the activity, I will determine what personnel I will require”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“given the limited projections included in the Petitioner's business plan, we are unable to ascertain whether her company's operations will operate on such a level”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the evidence does not establish broader implications from her work”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“a petitioner's expertise and record of success are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“these articles and fact sheets are relevant to the substantial merit of her endeavor, not its national importance”
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
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- 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 extensively rebuts a harmless-error/abuse-of-discretion argument and rejects reliance on Buletini v. INS to require evidence be considered only in totality without individualized weighing.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Buletini v. INS
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of O-R-E-
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