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 electrical technician and consultant, proposed to operate a business venture, submitting a business plan claiming economic impact and job creation from her endeavor.
Field: electrical technology/consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner did not establish her proposed endeavor has national importance”
“highlighted the lack of objective evidence of staffing projections and proposed figures”
“did not establish the proposed endeavor would result in substantial U.S. economic impact or job creation”
“the focus for determining national importance is on the Petitioner's specific endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“highlighted the lack of objective evidence of staffing projections and proposed figures”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“did not provide any new evidence, overcome the Director's determination, or identify any specific instances where the Director erred”
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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
Notable
This decision addresses only a motion to reconsider a prior AAO appellate dismissal; the AAO does not re-analyze the merits but incorporates its prior decision by reference and finds the Petitioner merely reiterated prior arguments without identifying legal or policy error. A footnote (apparently a template artifact) refers to the Petitioner as 'he' despite the decision otherwise using 'she.'
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. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of O-S-G-
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