dismissedMAY172023_04B52032023-05-17 · 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 lawyer, sought to create and operate a consulting company (formed with his father) to help U.S. companies invest and expand into Uzbekistan and Central Asia, and to bring Central Asian investors to the United States.
Field: international business consulting / trade and investment with Central Asia · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his specific, proposed endeavor of creating and operating a consulting company rather than the importance of investments, developments, relationships, and trade agreements”
“the letters contain vague, general assertions without showing how owning and operating stand to sufficiently extend beyond the company's prospective clients”
“did not indicate, as well as explain, how many jobs the Petitioner's endeavor would create or the level of revenue the company would generate”
“the Petitioner did not show his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters contain vague, general assertions without showing how owning and operating [the company] stand to sufficiently extend beyond the company's prospective clients”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“Although the evidence establishes the substantial merit of his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner did not show its national importance”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
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 explicitly declined to remand for a threshold EB-2 classification determination since the NIW prong 1 failure alone was dispositive; decision stresses that documentary evidence about the general importance of Uzbekistan/Central Asia trade relations is distinct from the importance of the specific consulting endeavor itself.
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 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