dismissedNOV222023_03B52032023-11-22 · appeal · Nebraska 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 operate a marketing consulting company (K-) advising U.S. automotive industry clients on strategies to increase sales and transition toward electric vehicles and reduced fuel costs, serving as its CEO and head of marketing.

Field: automotive marketing/business consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner's initial description of his proposed endeavor did not include plans to offer the types of services that K- provides to its customers as documented in the record.”

“The plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for these financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized.”

“he does not adequately explain through his plans how his endeavor is of national importance, rather than a means to primarily benefit himself through his business or its clients.”

“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and its clients to impact his field or related industries more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”

“he has not shown that his company's future staffing levels would provide substantial economic benefits in California or the United States.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“we cannot conclude that he meets either the first or second prong, or that he has established eligibility for a national interest waiver.”

“Because the Petitioner has not provided sufficient, consistent information regarding his proposed endeavor, we cannot conclude that he meets either the first or second prong.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“the consulting services that he performed for them do not relate to his initially stated professional goal”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“The plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for these financial and staffing projections”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“he provided no specific details about how he would perform related work through his proposed endeavor”
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
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Endeavor too vague · p2 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish

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 AAO found the RFE response introduced a materially different business endeavor (marketing consulting for hybrid/EV cost savings) than the one described at filing (strategy consulting for high-performance manufacturers transitioning to zero-carbon), invoking Matter of Ho, Izummi, and Katigbak to reject the shifted description as an impermissible material change rather than clarification. Prong 1 and Prong 2 failures were treated jointly as dispositive without separate developed analysis of well-positioned factors.

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. 103.2(b)(1)
8 C.F.R. 103.3
Matter of Ho
Matter of Izummi
Matter of Katigbak
Matter of L-A-C-
Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer