dismissedJUN182024_05B52032024-06-18 · 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 accountant specializing in IT, proposed to develop and implement automation systems in accounting and tax processes for small, medium, and large companies, and to train other professionals in accounting and IT.

Field: accounting / information technology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“his prior experience does not establish that his proposed endeavor has national importance.”

“The record does not show that this undertaking has broader implications in his field, beyond those who participate in his training sessions.”

“The Petitioner also did not show that his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation.”

“the Petitioner has not suggested or shown that his solutions or methodologies differ from or improve upon those already available and in use in the United States”

“merely working in an important field or profession is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

other · discounted
“his prior experience does not establish that his proposed endeavor has national importance.”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence.”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

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

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 submitted a job offer letter from a potential employer during the RFE response, which the AAO does not directly discuss as evidence of eligibility but notes in factual background; the case turns entirely on prong 1's national importance, with prongs 2 and 3 expressly reserved.

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
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
Flores v. Garland
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer