dismissedMAY042023_06B52032023-05-04 · 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 work as a Business Development Specialist for her own California-based company importing and distributing fruits and vegetables from Mexico.
Field: agricultural/food import-distribution business administration · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director already found her qualified as an advanced-degree professional; this was not contested on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“The Petitioner, however, does not offer any relevant supporting evidence to corroborate her assertions raised in her personal statement and business plan.”
“we find that the Petitioner has not established her proposed endeavor in this case will sufficiently extend beyond her clientele and employees to affect the regional or national economy more broadly”
“The record does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staff projections, or adequately support how these projections will be realized.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“this type of evidence relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“does not offer any relevant supporting evidence to corroborate her assertions raised in her personal statement and business plan”
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
- 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 declined to address Petitioner's argument that a self-petitioning entrepreneur cannot practically obtain a job offer or labor certification, since the first-prong failure was dispositive (see footnote 5).
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
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of E-M-
- 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