dismissedMAY012023_01B52032023-05-01 · 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 self-employed vocational training and career development specialist, consulting U.S. companies, learning institutions, and organizations on personnel management, career guidance, and workforce development strategies through her own company.
Field: vocational training and career development / human resources · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO agreed, that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree based on a foreign bachelor's degree plus five years of progressive experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record is unclear whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to work as a vocational training and career development specialist in the employment services industry or to work as a human resources manager”
“the record does not sufficiently indicate how the proposed endeavor has broader implications beyond her clients.”
“the business plan does not adequately explain how these income projections and staffing targets will be realized.”
“the record does not contain sufficient evidence to demonstrate that this address is a historically underutilized business zone or a HUBZone area”
“in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan does not adequately explain how these income projections and staffing targets will be realized.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“they do not address her future endeavor or how the performance of the planned activities under the endeavor would have broader implications”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the articles do not directly provide the potential prospective impact of the Petitioner's proposed specific work.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · ignored
“Although we have not addressed each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one.”
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 independently consulted the SBA HUBZone Qualification Report map to verify the Petitioner's unsupported claim that her business location was in a HUBZone, finding it did not qualify.
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 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