dismissedOCT022024_05B52032024-10-02 · 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 proposed to start and lead a human resources consulting company in Florida, working with individual clients on career development, diversity and inclusion workshops, and support for aspiring entrepreneurs.
Field: human resources consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not contain supporting evidence corroborating the projected employment and financial figures indicated in the Petitioner's business plan”
“the Petitioner has not established the economic benefits of her work...will extend sufficiently beyond impacting her own individual clients and the companies in which they are placed”
“our assessment of national importance does not focus on the importance of issues to the field in general, but instead "focuses on the specific endeavor"”
“the Petitioner has not established her proposed endeavor would sufficiently extend beyond the individual clients and companies she works with to impact the field of human resources more broadly”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the record does not contain supporting evidence corroborating the projected employment and financial figures indicated in the Petitioner's business plan”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
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 explicitly reserved the third Dhanasar prong (not the second, which was never addressed by the Director) as unnecessary given the dispositive finding on prong one; threshold EB-2 classification was never reached by either the Director or AAO.
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
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers