dismissedMAY192025_04B52032025-05-19 · appeal
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 IT Project Manager, proposed to leave her job and become CEO of her own LLC, building a Health IT/blockchain digital platform to expand financial services and healthcare access for underserved communities.
Field: IT project management / digital transformation in financial services and healthcare · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of her specific, proposed endeavor of providing her particular IT project managerial services to the industry”
“the Petitioner did not demonstrate how her financial and healthcare focused IT project managerial services largely influences the field and rises to the level of national importance”
“the Petitioner did not present sufficient supporting evidence, corroborating the assertions and figures”
“the Petitioner does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these projections”
“the record does not demonstrate that, beyond the limited benefits provided to its prospective clients and employees, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has broader implications, rising to national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner did not present sufficient supporting evidence, corroborating the assertions and figures”
AAO decision text - resume experience · ignored
“the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - other · ignored
“Because the Petitioner was put on notice and given a reasonable opportunity to provide this evidence, we will not consider it for the first time on appeal”
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
- 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
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 declined to consider new evidence (updated employer information and global financial sector impact evidence) submitted for the first time on appeal, citing Matter of Soriano; decision explicitly frames dismissal on prong one as an independent and alternate basis.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- 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