dismissedMAY182023_06B52032023-05-18 · 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 insurance sales manager, proposed to own and operate her own insurance consulting company in the U.S., recruiting and training insurance agents and providing consultancy services to insurance companies.
Field: insurance sales/consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not sufficiently shown the national importance aspect of her proposed endeavor”
“the plan makes no specific, credible projections as to the number of new and experienced agents it expects to recruit and train”
“did not explain or articulate how the Petitioner's specific, proposed endeavor will have national importance”
“they do not indicate the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the company's profits would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
“the Petitioner did not demonstrate that such future staffing levels would provide substantial economic benefits to the ... Florida or U.S. economy more broadly”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the plan makes no specific, credible projections as to the number of new and experienced agents it expects to recruit and train”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“did not explain or articulate how the Petitioner's specific, proposed endeavor will have national importance”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“The Petitioner's experience and abilities in her field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
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
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 expressly declines to reach threshold EB-2 classification and prongs 2/3, resting solely on prong 1 national importance failure; decision emphasizes distinction between industry-wide importance and the specific endeavor's importance.
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