dismissedJUN102022_02B52032022-06-10 · motion_reconsider · Nebraska 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, a business analyst with expertise in Brazilian oil and gas, consumer products, and real estate industries, proposed to provide business management consulting, strategic planning, and business intelligence services to U.S. companies.
Field: business analysis / management consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“he has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his prospective employers or business clientele to impact his industry or the U.S. economy more broadly”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S . workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation”
“The Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor would impact or significantly reduce the claimed national shortage.”
“shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process.”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead we focus on the specific endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“The Petitioner's expertise, skills, and experience in his field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“The Petitioner's arguments on motion do not establish that we erred in concluding that he had not satisfied the "national importance" requirement”
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
- 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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
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
The Petitioner argued the AAO applied a 'stricter standard of proof' than preponderance of the evidence; the AAO rejected this, reaffirming its earlier weighing of evidence under Chawathe/E-M- and dismissing the motion for failing to identify legal or factual error.
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. 103.5(a)(3)
- Matter of E-M-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution