dismissedNOV202024_08B52032024-11-20 · motion_reconsider · 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 operate a marketing and business management consulting firm in the United States, claiming it would create economic benefits and jobs.
Field: marketing and business management consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“he did not establish his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers, has other substantial positive economic effects, has national or even global implications within the field”
“We noted that none of the articles mention the Petitioner or his company, or otherwise speak to the potential prospective impact of his proposed endeavor.”
“he does not elaborate on his firm's staffing projections or provide evidence supporting the need for additional employees”
“the Petitioner has not provided evidence demonstrating that his company's proposed consulting services would operate on such a scale as to rise to a level of national importance”
“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner had not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to 'employ a substantial number of U.S. workers or otherwise have significant economic impact'”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“he does not explain how our analysis of this documentation was in error”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“none of the articles mention the Petitioner or his company, or otherwise speak to the potential prospective impact of his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“he does not explain how our analysis of this documentation was in error”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“he does not explain how our analysis of this documentation was in error”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- other · discounted
“he does not elaborate on his firm's staffing projections or provide evidence supporting the need for additional employees”
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
- 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
1,312coded 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 conflated prong 2 evidence (education, skills, expertise) with prong 1 national importance analysis; AAO clarified these relate to different prongs of the Dhanasar framework.
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
- 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