dismissedJUN252024_10B52032024-06-25 · 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 founded a company to provide research, financing, and marketing consulting services to U.S. agribusinesses, aiming to strengthen the agricultural sector.
Field: agribusiness consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Petitioner qualified as an individual of exceptional ability by meeting at least three of six regulatory criteria; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not establish that the endeavor rises to the level of national importance as contemplated in Dhanasar”
“the plan does not sufficiently detail how the prospective impact of his endeavor will reach beyond his clientele”
“the Petitioner has not shown that his company's future staffing levels, 15 employees in 5 years, stands to provide substantial economic benefits”
“the Petitioner has not detailed how his specific endeavor, consulting for agribusinesses, would have a potential prospective national impact on this issue”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“he has not submitted sufficient detail and documentation to support this claim”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · ignored
- media · discounted
“although the strength of the United States agricultural sector is an important issue, the Petitioner has not detailed how his specific endeavor... would have a potential prospective national impact”
AAO decision text - degree · ignored
- other · discounted
“there is little supporting evidence to show this level of employment opportunities would make up a significant population of workers”
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
1,358coded 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
Decision cites Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) regarding discretionary nature of NIW grants; AAO expressly reserved prongs 2 and 3 as unnecessary given dispositive prong 1 failure.
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
- Matter of L-A-C-
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