dismissedMAR282025_01B52032025-03-28 · 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 establish and serve as CEO of a New York-based consultancy offering risk management and internal auditing services to small and medium-sized businesses.
Field: risk management and internal auditing consultancy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of a proposed endeavor”
“he has not sufficiently demonstrated his own endeavor would extend beyond his company and its clients in a manner that has national or global impact”
“the record does not contain sufficient supporting evidence to corroborate the projected financial figures”
“the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects beyond his company and its clients”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the record does not contain sufficient supporting evidence to corroborate the projected financial figures”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated similarly employing a risk-based approach in his proposed endeavor in the United States would constitute current innovation”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
1,358coded 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 acknowledged the petitioner had shown substantial merit but focused entirely on national importance failure, finding the endeavor's claimed innovation (risk-based auditing approach) was not novel given petitioner's own admission the approach existed internationally since the early 2000s.
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 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