dismissedJUN062025_03B52032025-06-06 · appeal
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, a digital marketing and social media consultant, proposed to found and lead a U.S. company building an AI-based online evaluation platform to help small and medium enterprises (SMEs) assess risk and reduce business failure rates.
Field: AI-based SME risk assessment platform development (digital marketing/business consulting background) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the evidence does not demonstrate that it would have significant potential to employ U.S. workers, have substantial positive economic impact in this country”
“the general industry reports and articles primarily relate to the significance of the SME industry rather than her own proposed field of developing AI-based online SME risk assessment platforms”
“these projections lack corroborating evidence that would objectively substantiate them, and the record does not demonstrate how she will specifically achieve them”
“does not sufficiently demonstrate how her proposed work would have the national or global implications for the U.S. industry as she claims, beyond her prospective business and its clientele”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the above evidence and assertions focus on her experience, skills, and the importance of the SME industry, and relate to Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“relate to Dhanasar's second prong, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“these projections lack corroborating evidence that would objectively substantiate them”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“even if...she were to receive actual investments for her future business...has not demonstrated that the economic benefits...would reach the level of substantial positive economic effects”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
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
1,358coded 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 reserved the underlying EB-2 classification issue since SCOPS never addressed it, and declined to reach Dhanasar prongs 2 and 3 despite SCOPS having found them unmet, since prong 1 alone was dispositive.
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.
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of E-M-
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