dismissedMAR132025_04B52032025-03-13 · 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 planned to establish a consulting company in Florida offering industrial production management consulting, process optimization, quality management, technology implementation, and environmental sustainability consulting services to manufacturers.
Field: industrial production management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner cites no evidence to support this claim.”
“These projections do not establish that the employment of up to 21 people with up to $1,969,120 in wages is indicative of national importance”
“The business plan's financial forecast does not indicate that the company would have a substantial positive economic effect on the manufacturing industry”
“M-A- does not explain how any of these services are unique, innovative or otherwise have national or even global implications in the Petitioner's field.”
“simply working in areas of national importance does not establish that a specific proposed endeavor will have a potential prospective impact of national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“The Petitioner's business plan does not support this assertion.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“M-A- does not explain how any of these services are unique, innovative or otherwise have national or even global implications in the Petitioner's field.”
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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
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
AAO expressly reserved determination on threshold EB-2 exceptional ability classification since the national importance failure was dispositive, despite the Director having denied on both grounds.
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-
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