dismissedMAR142024_01B52032024-03-14 · motion_reconsider · 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, a change management specialist in human resources, proposed to establish her own consultancy company providing change management advisory services to small and medium-sized companies in the information technology and logistics industries.
Field: human resources / change management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or professions in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the specific endeavor”
“the record does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner's consulting activities offer benefits that extend beyond her clients to impact the information technology industry or the logistics industry more broadly”
“we concluded that neither the business plan nor the remaining evidence in the record demonstrated that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“neither the business plan nor the remaining evidence in the record demonstrated that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the record does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner's consulting activities offer benefits that extend beyond her clients”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's job experience and past performance and achievements generally relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“a motion to reconsider is not a process by which the party may present essentially the same arguments and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior decision”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- 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
Motion to reconsider following a prior AAO appeal dismissal; AAO found the Petitioner merely reasserted prior arguments without identifying legal/policy error, per Matter of O-S-G- standard. AAO declined to reach prongs 2 and 3, citing Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for declining unnecessary alternate findings.
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(12)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of O-S-G-
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