The Petitioner, holding a master's degree in human resource management, proposed to work as a human resources consultant through her own Florida-based company, helping new and small businesses hire and retain employees.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“she has not identified any specific human resources consulting engagements for which the Petitioner plans to offer services”

“The record does not establish that her human resources consulting business would be of a size or income level that would suggest the ability to generate substantial positive economic effects.”

“they do not specifically show how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to work as a human resources manager would impact the human resources industry more broadly rather than benefiting her clients and their customers”

“the professors have not provided any analysis or numerical breakdowns to substantiate how the Petitioner's human resources consulting would benefit the nation's labor market, economy, and business industry”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the expert opinion letters do not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has significant potential to employee U.S. workers”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “they do not support that her proposed endeavor to work as a human resources consultant through her company has "a significant potential to employ U.S. workers"”

  AAO decision text
• media · discounted

  “they do not specifically show how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to work as a human resources manager would impact the human resources industry more broadly”

  AAO decision text
• degree · credited
• resume experience · discounted

  “these letters demonstrate the Petitioner's past work experience and contributions to her former client and employer, they do not support that her proposed endeavor ... has national importance”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
• 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

The Petitioner cited two non-precedent AAO decisions sustaining EB-1 extraordinary ability appeals, which the AAO distinguished as involving a different classification and non-binding. The AAO expressly reserved the second and third Dhanasar prongs as unnecessary to reach given the dispositive first-prong failure, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C-.

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)
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Poursina v. USCIS

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