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 sought to grow her existing Florida interior design and remodeling business, manage a luxury real estate interior-design project, and provide business consulting services to other entrepreneurs in the U.S.
Field: interior design / business consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework”
“the Petitioner has not shown that her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her company or its clientele to impact her field, the real estate and construction industries, or the U.S. economy more broadly”
“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to her future work”
“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
- recommendation letter · discounted
“relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“does not contain sufficient information and explanation ... to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed work ... offers broader implications”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“did not state that her proposed endeavor was aimed at U.S. companies doing business or planning to do business in Brazil”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to her future work”
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
- 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
Notable
AAO expressly declines to reach prongs two and three, and also declines to remand for a threshold EB-2 classification determination since the appeal fails on prong one alone; decision states each ground is an independent and alternate basis for dismissal.
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.
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to show her endeavor's impact would extend beyond her own company and clientele to the broader field or U.S. economy, i.e., no evidence of national-scale effect.
Tie the specific proposed endeavor to quantifiable, broader-than-company impact (jobs, economic effects, field advancement) rather than generic industry statistics or personal credentials.
vague
economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · us_competitiveness
person_focused
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