dismissedMAY232024_09B52032024-05-23 · 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 proposed to own and operate a human resources consulting firm in the U.S., serving as CEO and head consultant offering HR-related services to clients.
Field: human resources · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner established EB-2 eligibility as an advanced degree holder based on bachelor's degree plus five years of progressive experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner neither provided corroborating evidence in support of those projections nor demonstrated that this endeavor would result in substantial positive economic effects”
“the Petitioner focuses primarily on ways in which his services will benefit his clients and does not provide evidence to demonstrate that his work as the owner of a consulting firm would result in an impact of regional or national importance”
“the articles highlight "the important role" of business professionals and do not discuss the Petitioner's specific endeavor”
“The Petitioner's credentials and professional experience do not demonstrate the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner neither provided corroborating evidence in support of those projections”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the record lacks evidence to support assertions concerning the endeavor's national importance”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“evidence of the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, education, and experience involves considerations that pertain to Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the articles highlight "the important role" of business professionals and do not discuss the Petitioner's specific 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
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
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
Petitioner unsuccessfully argued the Director applied a heightened standard of proof beyond preponderance of the evidence; AAO rejected this as unsubstantiated.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Chen v. INS
- Matter of L-A-C-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution