dismissedJUN072024_07B52032024-06-07 · 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, an administrative/financial manager, proposed to establish and operate her own accounting, tax, auditing, and business consulting firm in the United States, planning to hire staff including individuals with caregiving responsibilities and disabilities.

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

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“When determining national importance, however, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, sector, or profession in which the individual will work”

“the Petitioner has not shown how the administrative management services she intends to provide to individuals and businesses would have broader implications in the accounting services or financial management field”

“the job creation and revenue projections included in the Petitioner's business plan are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how those projections will be realized”

“The business plans do not corroborate the job creation claims that the Petitioner makes on appeal.”

“she has not suggested that her proposed endeavor would lessen the shortage of trained accounting services or financial management professionals on a scale rising to the level of national importance”

“the record does not provide adequate support for a determination that her specific proposed endeavor will have such a wide-reaching impact”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“the job creation and revenue projections included in the Petitioner's business plan are not supported by details showing their basis”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“A determination regarding the claimed national importance of a specific proposed endeavor cannot be inferred based on the Petitioner's past accomplishments”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“the Petitioner's expertise acquired through her academic and professional career primarily relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text
media · discounted
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, sector, or profession in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“much of the content of the expert opinion letter lacked relevance and probative value with respect to the 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
Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
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
Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

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

The AAO noted inconsistencies in the business plan regarding planned office locations (Ohio/California in the business plan vs. South Carolina/Maine in the appeal brief) and found the Petitioner's HUBZone claim unsupported because the business plan itself made no mention of the HUBZone program.

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
Matter of Caron Int'l
Matter of D-R-
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer