dismissedJUN282024_03B52032024-06-28 · combined · 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 attorney and investment consultant, proposed to establish an investment consulting business in Florida working with foreign (Brazilian) investors, including in real estate/affordable housing.
Field: investment consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the fact that a petitioner is qualified for and may accept a position in an industry or sector that is the subject of national initiatives is not sufficient, in and of itself, to establish the national importance of a specific endeavor”
“The focus of Dhanasar 's first prong is the potential prospective impact of a petitioner's specific endeavor, not the entire industry or field in which they work.”
“we correctly concluded the Petitioner had not adequately demonstrated that the potential prospective impact of his endeavor would rise to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“working in or establishing a business in an industry that is the subject of national initiatives is not sufficient, in and of itself, to establish the national importance”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not sufficiently demonstrate the potential prospective impact of his endeavor on the matter that is the subject of national initiatives”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“He does not, however, introduce any new evidence, or a new fact supported by documentary evidence”
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
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
The Petitioner argued the AAO imposed 'ultra vires' requirements by allegedly rewording Dhanasar's 'significant potential to employ U.S. workers' and 'substantial economic effects' language into stricter formulations; AAO rejected this as mischaracterizing its prior decision's illustrative examples as mandatory requirements.
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. 103.5
- Matter of Coelho
- Matter of E-M-
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