dismissedNOV172023_03B52032023-11-17 · 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 sought to run his own company providing quality management systems (QMS) and related consulting services—covering quality control, safety, environmental regulation, and auditing—to small and medium manufacturing businesses in the U.S., initially focused on a Florida HUBZone area.

Field: quality management engineering / manufacturing consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established

“the record supports the conclusion that the potential impact of the endeavor of providing quality management to small and medium sized businesses and manufacturing companies would benefit only the individuals and entities engaging the service.”

“the record contains insufficient documentation to support the Petitioner's projections.”

“the Petitioner's possession of a degree in a STEM field does not automatically render their proposed endeavor substantially meritorious, nationally important, or substantially meritorious and nationally important.”

“when the advisory opinion does evaluate the endeavor's national interest, it speaks of it in vague or generalized conclusions.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established

“The record as currently constituted would still not reflect how the Petitioner's prior performance of the duties described in the experience letters is either a similar effort as that of their proposed endeavor or how it constitutes a record of success.”

“the record does not reflect any progress to achieving the proposed endeavor other than registering their company.”

“the recommendation letters the Petitioner submitted are not material, relevant, or probative evidence in the record of interest or support in the endeavor the Petitioner proposed in their petition.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“the record does not reflect any progress to achieving the proposed endeavor other than registering their company.”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“the advisory opinion submitted by the Petitioner does not illustrate how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor rises to national importance either.”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“does not reflect how the Petitioner's prior performance of the duties described in the experience letters is... a record of success.”
AAO decision text
certification membership · discounted
“the record does not sufficiently describe how the Petitioner's ISO certifications and efforts to proliferate ISO certifications... implicates matters of national importance.”
AAO decision text
degree · discounted
“the Petitioner's possession of a degree in a STEM field does not automatically render their proposed endeavor... nationally important.”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

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
Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish

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 withdrew the Director's favorable finding on prong 2 despite otherwise agreeing with the denial. Notable extended analysis rejecting the HUBZone program as a basis for national importance, reasoning the program's ownership eligibility rules (requiring U.S.-citizen or tribal/community ownership) made the Petitioner's HUBZone job-creation argument 'wholly irrelevant.' Footnote also disputes Petitioner's appellate characterization of the Director's 'CEO/Entrepreneur' label, confirming via dictionary definition that Petitioner is indeed an entrepreneur.

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
Matter of L-A-C-
Matter of Y-B-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer