dismissedMAR032025_07B52032025-03-03 · 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 sought to establish and operate a consulting company providing agricultural consultancy services, including advising family farmers, developing agricultural projects, supporting agricultural biotechnology, and training professionals and farmers.
Field: agricultural engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner nonetheless has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor will bring substantial economic benefit that would rise to the level of national importance.”
“The Petitioner, however, does not provide sufficient detail of the basis of these projections, or adequately explain how these staffing targets and revenue forecasts will be realized.”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his specific endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond the farmers and businesses he elects to work with”
“Although the Petitioner argues that his endeavor aligns with government initiatives, he has not shown that his contributions are distinctive, or indispensable compared to other agricultural businesses/others in the same field.”
“The Petitioner's professional experience is generally material to Dhanasar's second prong...but they are generally immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“does not provide sufficient detail of the basis of these projections, or adequately explain how these staffing targets and revenue forecasts will be realized”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · ignored
- resume experience · discounted
“they are misplaced in the context of the first Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
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 →
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-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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