dismissedOCT082024_03B52032024-10-08 · combined · 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, a nutritionist, proposed to found a startup nutrition consulting services company in Florida, employing 17 individuals within five years.
Field: nutrition consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not establish the proposed endeavor will have national importance”
“the record does not corroborate the Petitioner's assertions that the proposed endeavor would generally create financial bridges and prompt economic development”
“a shortage of workers or skills does not categorically make a proposed endeavor nationally important”
“the record does not establish the proposed endeavor will have "sufficiently broad implications for the field to demonstrate its national importance."”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- media · discounted
“none of the media publications the Petitioner submits as supporting documentary evidence on motion to reopen address the Petitioner”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner submits, in essence, the same brief she submitted on appeal, containing many passages...of verbatim text, generally alleging error”
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AAO corrected the Petitioner's mis-citation of a rescinded 2013 (not 2015) USCIS policy memorandum and clarified it was inapplicable; also noted the Petitioner conflated RFE/NOID regulation with appeals regulation.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5
- Matter of Coelho
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of O-S-G-
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