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 systems architect with Mulesoft platform expertise, proposed to work as an independent consultant offering system integration, IT governance, and cybersecurity services to U.S. companies, while also training IT professionals through an expanded consulting/training business.
Field: IT systems architecture / Mulesoft systems integration · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner's professional plan does not provide sufficient detail beyond generalized projections of "boosting software sales," "increas[ing] employee efficiency," and 'job creation."”
“The Petitioner does not explain how his consulting services will have broader implications beyond his clients, such as substantial positive economic effects, broad enhancements to societal welfare, or contributions to the advancement of a valuable technology.”
“Much of the Petitioner's evidence relates to the IT industry generally, rather than his specific proposed endeavor.”
“the advisory opinion is of little probative value as it does not meaningfully address the details of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor and why it would have national importance.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the record does not include a business plan describing how he seeks to implement his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“he does not discuss the details of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor with specificity”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“does not specifically discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“The Petitioner does not provide evidence of his claimed partnership with”
AAO decision text - resume experience · ignored
Where this case turned
- 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
Notable
AAO partially credited petitioner by withdrawing the Director's finding that IT training was an improper 'material change' to the endeavor, but still found national importance unmet. Includes a footnote alternative-holding analysis of prongs 2/3 explaining that even if reached, the appeal would still be dismissed due to lack of business plan and no evidence submitted on prong 3.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
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