dismissedMAR242025_03B52032025-03-24 · 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 sought to create a U.S.-based consulting company offering administrative management, strategic planning, business process optimization, financial modeling, and online-platform-based advisory services primarily targeting law firms and other businesses.
Field: business/management consulting (organizational development, legal consulting) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner asserted a confusing array of generic business plans in varying industries leaving substantial question as to the potential prospective impact of his proposed endeavor on a national level.”
“our focus is not on the importance of the field within which the Petitioner would work, but the potential national implications of his specifically proposed endeavor”
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact to the field have little probative value.”
“he submitted little detail and documentation to substantiate how these plans would be realized”
“Although any basic economic activity resulting from the Petitioner's work has the potential to positively impact a local economy, he has not provided sufficient explanation of the prospective impact directly attributable to his proposed work”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner did not present sufficiently clear and credible business plans to support that his proposed endeavor would have a potential prospective national impact”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the expert opinion discusses a wide range of potential services, industries, and impacts leaving uncertainty as to both the nature of the proposed endeavor and its potential prospective impact”
AAO decision text - resume experience · ignored
“The issue here is whether the Petitioner has demonstrated the national importance of a specific proposed endeavor.”
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
- 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
- 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 emphasizes that the size/revenue of an industry ($329.9 billion legal consulting market) cannot substitute for showing national impact of the specific endeavor; criticizes the petitioner's shifting and inconsistent business plans (varying industries, undisclosed software tool) as undermining clarity of the proposed endeavor.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of Ho
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers