dismissedNOV142023_04B52032023-11-14 · 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 industrial engineer, proposed to provide specialized industrial-engineering/operational-excellence consulting services to U.S. companies to streamline manufacturing and production processes, initially framed around the beauty industry and later described in generic terms without a specified industry.
Field: industrial engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the updated professional plan does not indicate which area, field, or industry the Petitioner intended to offer her services as an industrial engineer”
“the Petitioner did not demonstrate how her specific, proposed endeavor of providing her industrial engineering services for a particular company largely influences the field and rises to the level of national importance”
“the Petitioner did not sufficiently explain or demonstrate how her particular proposed endeavor would have any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation”
“the Petitioner's skills, experience, and abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters discuss the Petitioner's prior work and accomplishments and relate to the second prong rather than the first prong”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the updated professional plan makes general and broad claims, such as "overall business growth in the United States"”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“none of which appear to be within the beauty industry”
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
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
The Petitioner's description of the proposed endeavor shifted between filing (beauty industry focus) and RFE response (generic, unspecified industry), which the AAO cited as undermining the specificity required to assess national importance; AAO dismissed on prong 1 alone, expressly declining to reach prongs 2 and 3 and noting the dismissal rests on independent and alternate grounds.
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.
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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