dismissedJUN142024_01B52032024-06-14 · 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 sought to continue operating, as CEO, a U.S. LLC she and her spouse founded that provides management consulting services—strategy, operations, project/process management, and business process reengineering—to small and medium-sized enterprises and startups.
Field: management consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not show the prospective impact of the petitioner's specific proposed endeavor . . . beyond her own clients, customers, professional colleagues, students, or employer(s) for which she would provide her services.”
“These projections do not indicate that the business would affect the economy at a nationally important level.”
“she has not demonstrated that her specific business - alone - would have national implications for the U.S. economy or the management consulting field.”
“when combined with other businesses' activities, the Petitioner's consulting services might "contribute" to national economic growth and "enhance" U.S. competitiveness.”
“she has not demonstrated that her specific proposed business would affect the national economy or the management consulting field "more broadly."”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“These projections do not indicate that the business would affect the economy at a nationally important level.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“she has not demonstrated that her specific business - alone - would have national implications for the U.S. economy or the management consulting field.”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“These projections do not indicate that the business would affect the economy at a nationally important level.”
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
- 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
1,312coded 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
AAO refused to consider a post-filing 'business expansion plan' submitted in response to an RFE, citing the material-change rule from Matter of Izummi and 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(1); this evidentiary point is treated as a footnote rather than a substantive prong failure code but influenced the national-importance analysis.
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of L-A-C-
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