dismissedJUN212024_07B52032024-06-21 · 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, a business development specialist with a background in retail sales and management, proposed to work as an independent consultant providing strategic business management, sales strategy, and operational guidance to U.S. companies, initially focusing on textile, food and beverage, and automotive industries.

Field: business development / management consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not contain information or evidence regarding any projected direct economic impacts or job creation attributable to the Petitioner's future work”

“he did not provide a business plan, or other projections explaining the expected scope of his intended consulting activities”

“he does not offer a sufficient evidentiary basis for these broad statements or otherwise support his assertions that his provision of consulting services...would potentially have such far-reaching impacts”

“A shortage of qualified professionals alone does not render the work of an individual business development specialist or consultant nationally important”

“the fact that an individual will work in a field that is generally adjacent to the subject of national initiatives is not sufficient to demonstrate the national importance of their work”

“the authors do not state, for example, that the Petitioner's past work had broad implications within his field that would be carried over to the proposed endeavor”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“he did not provide a business plan, or other projections explaining the expected scope of his intended consulting activities”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“the authors do not state...that the Petitioner's past work had broad implications within his field”
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
other · discounted
“this shortage is likewise insufficient to demonstrate the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
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
Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
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

AAO expressly reserved prongs 2 and 3 after finding prong 1 dispositive, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for declining to reach unnecessary issues. Petitioner's reliance on Biden Administration's American Rescue Plan initiative for small businesses was rejected as merely 'adjacent' to national importance.

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

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer