dismissedMAY022023_04B52032023-05-02 · 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, a business administrator, proposed to offer consulting services and customized business solutions to small and medium-size U.S. enterprises to improve operations, productivity, and profitability.
Field: business administration · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the proposed activities in her new professional plan entail typical work of a business administrator”
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“she has not offered a sufficient explanation for how this individual benefit rises to the level of national importance or will impact the field more broadly”
“the record does not demonstrate how working for a company or companies as an individual business administrator generates such significant economic activity”
“these letters are not probative of the Petitioner's eligibility under the first prong of Dhanasar”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or specific impact of her endeavor”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the proposed activities in her new professional plan entail typical work of a business administrator”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, education, and experience are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
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 limited its review to national importance under prong 1 since Director found substantial merit met but national importance not met; declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 as unnecessary. Also noted a job offer email from a data company paying for work-from-home data collection tasks, seemingly at odds with the professional plan.
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
- 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