dismissedOCT102023_03B52032023-10-10 · 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, an information scientist, proposed to start her own educational consulting company in the U.S. that would develop tailor-made e-learning training courses for schools, universities, companies, and NGOs, coordinating freelance workers to produce the materials.
Field: e-learning / educational consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO did not disturb, that Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not establish how the proposed endeavor may have "national or even global implications within a particular field”
“in general the endeavor's business model appears to benefit only the clients that request the Petitioner's services and "tailor-made" material”
“the document does not elaborate on the number of freelance workers the Petitioner would direct, the compensation she would provide those workers”
“the publications in the record referenced in the brief do not address how the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have national importance”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“the letters address the Petitioner in generalized terms and conclusory statements that provide limited insight into how well positioned she may be”
“neither the letters nor the remainder of the record indicate that the Petitioner has a record of success founding and operating her own educational consulting company”
“the record does not contain evidence that the Petitioner has registered her unnamed company to do business in any particular location”
“the transcript ... does not provide sufficient information to determine how well positioned the Petitioner may be to advance the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters address the Petitioner in generalized terms and conclusory statements that provide limited insight”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the curriculum vitae provides little probative information regarding how well positioned she may be to advance the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“does not provide sufficient information to determine how well positioned the Petitioner may be to advance the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the record does not establish that membership in the Peruvian Association of eLearning is required for the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the document does not elaborate on the actual process of creating training material”
AAO decision text
All 7 evidence items
- other · discounted
“the brief letters do not provide additional information about the services they anticipate receiving”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“they do not specifically address the Petitioner, the proposed endeavor, or how the specific endeavor may have national importance”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Education alone insufficient · p2 — degrees offered as positioning — credentials are not a track record
- Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
- 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 devotes extensive analysis to document authenticity concerns—pixelated/word-processed signature images on translated personal statement and multiple letters, uncertified/unreliable translations, and inconsistent CV formatting—concluding these fraud-adjacent indicia independently undermine the reliability of nearly all record evidence before reaching the substantive Dhanasar merits.
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. 103.2(b)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- Matter of Ho
- 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