dismissedJUN072024_06B52032024-06-07 · 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, formerly an administrative assistant in Brazil, proposed to work in the U.S. as a business manager providing companies specialized services in sales, finance, human resources, and purchasing, focusing on oil and gas, infrastructure, railway, pharmaceutical, and automobile industries.

Field: business management / administration · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would sufficiently extend beyond her potential employers to impact her field more broadly”

“Neither Ms. nor Ms. specify how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would have national or even global implications”

“The Petitioner does not cite any evidence to support this claim.”

“they do not discuss how her proposed endeavor would have any economic effect beyond the individual businesses at which she may be employed”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“do not specify how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would have national or even global implications”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

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
Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

2,501coded 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

Petitioner argued the Director's mistaken reference to her as a 'lawyer' in the decision undermined the national-importance analysis; AAO acknowledged the error but found no prejudice. Petitioner also invoked a 'White House initiative to promote small business growth' as evidence of national importance, which AAO rejected as unsupported.

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-

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show the endeavor's impact would extend beyond individual employers to the field or nation; letters addressed personal skill, not endeavor-level national importance.

Transferable lesson

Support letters and evidence must explicitly tie the proposed endeavor's impact to national or field-wide scale, not merely praise the petitioner's individual competence.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

economic_growth_generic · us_competitiveness

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer