dismissedMAR242025_02B52032025-03-24 · 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 proposed to work as a business intelligence consultant and establish his own consulting company in Austin, Texas, providing data analysis and digital transformation services to medium and large companies.
Field: business intelligence / data analytics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate his work as a business intelligence consultant and entrepreneur would extend beyond his clients”
“our focus in assessing national importance is on the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake and its prospective impact rather than the importance of the industry or profession”
“the unsupported revenue and employment projections in the business plan and generalized conclusions in both the business plan and the expert opinion letter are insufficient to demonstrate that the proposed endeavor would have national economic impact”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“unsupported revenue and employment projections in the business plan and generalized conclusions...are insufficient to demonstrate”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“do not address the specific endeavor or the services the Petitioner would provide through his company”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“our focus in assessing national importance is on the specific endeavor...rather than the importance of the industry or profession”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“relates to whether the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor rather than whether his proposed endeavor is nationally important”
AAO decision text
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
2,589coded 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 declined to reach prongs two and three, citing INS v. Bagamasbad's rule against purely advisory agency findings, since prong one was dispositive.
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
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