dismissedMAY182023_03B52032023-05-18 · 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, an environmental compliance inspector, proposed to found and operate a U.S.-based environmental consulting company providing environmental inspections, waste disposal advisory, and related services to American clients.
Field: environmental compliance/consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner did not initially describe what his proposed, prospective endeavor would entail.”
“the business plan dated August 2022 for the founding of such a company presents a new set of facts that the record does not establish existed at the time of filing”
“The implausibility of the Petitioner operating the proposed company with 11 employees working in his private residence casts doubt on the veracity of the business plan specifically”
“does not demonstrate that the proposed endeavor offers benefits which extend beyond potential clients to impact [the Petitioner's] field”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“presents a new set of facts that the record does not establish existed at the time of filing”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the extent of the letter's acknowledgement of the proposed endeavor is a generalized assertion”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong-whether the specific proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the article does not address either the Petitioner or his specific, 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
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Material change of endeavor · p1 — the endeavor described on appeal is not the one filed
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 found the belatedly submitted 2022 business plan constituted an improper post-filing material change and separately questioned its veracity given the implausibility of a company with 11 employees operating out of the Petitioner's private residence.
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- 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