dismissedJUN272025_03B52032025-06-27 · appeal
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 provide international business and legal advisory services to help foreign investors and U.S. companies navigate compliance, operations, and strategic growth through his own consulting practice.
Field: international legal advisory / business consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner does not offer sufficient evidence establishing that these economic ripple effects would be attributable to the proposed endeavor”
“it does not demonstrate that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
“does not demonstrate that the prospective impact of the proposed endeavor will extend beyond his clients to more broadly impact the field of business consulting”
“It is the importance and prospective impact of the specific endeavor we must analyze and not the industry itself.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“does not demonstrate that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“does not specify how this will result in the proposed endeavor generating the claimed significant economic impacts”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“they are not evidence of the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor itself”
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
2,589coded 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 frames its prong-1 sub-findings (unsupported ripple effects, insufficient job-creation impact, lack of field-wide effect, background-only articles) as independent and alternate bases for dismissal, though all are coded under prong 1 since AAO explicitly reserved prong 3 and did not disturb SCOPS' favorable prong-2 finding.
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.
- Flores v. Garland
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