dismissedOCT102024_05B52032024-10-10 · 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 proposed to operate his own company providing strategic financial advisory services tailored to small and medium-sized U.S. businesses.
Field: financial advisory services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor offers broader implications in the finance and business industry”
“The Petitioner, however, does not provide sufficient detail of the basis of these projections, or adequately explain how these staffing targes and revenue forecasts will be realized.”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“the record does not establish how the proposed endeavor will have broader implications beyond benefitting the Petitioner's clients and businesses he elects to work with”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“does not provide sufficient detail of the basis of these projections, or adequately explain how these staffing targes and revenue forecasts will be realized”
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 →
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