dismissedMAY292024_05B52032024-05-29 · 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 former drugstore general manager and pharmaceutical sales representative, proposed to work as a business manager offering companies a professional action plan covering budgeting, sales strategy, inventory control, and payroll cost analysis, initially focused on the pharmaceutical distribution industry.
Field: business management / pharmaceutical distribution · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner has not shown how the services he intends to provide would have broader implications in the fields of business management or pharmaceutical distribution.”
“when determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, sector, or profession in which the individual will work”
“these statements are not supported by financial projections”
“The Petitioner has not offered evidence identifying the area where he will operate; that it is economically depressed”
“Although the proposed endeavor may benefit the client companies and consumers that engage the Petitioner's services, the record does not sufficiently show that such benefits ... would rise to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“these statements are not supported by financial projections”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“A determination regarding the claimed national importance of a specific proposed endeavor cannot be inferred based on the Petitioner's past accomplishments”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's expertise acquired through his academic and professional career primarily relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“pursuing employment in an area that is adjacent to or aligned with the subject of national initiatives is not sufficient, in and of itself”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
2,501coded 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 distinguishes industry/field importance from the specific proposed endeavor, rejecting reliance on general pharmaceutical-industry and small-business statistics as insufficient to show national importance of the Petitioner's individual consulting-style endeavor.
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)
- Flores v. Garland
- 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