dismissedOCT142025_04B52032025-10-14 · 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 industrial engineer, proposed to operate her own consulting firm advising small and medium-sized companies on production-line optimization, quality management, process standardization, and safety systems.
Field: industrial engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims.”
“these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved.”
“the issue here is not the national importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; rather we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
“does not explain how her work stands to affect her field or industry beyond her immediate clients.”
“she has not shown that her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her company and its future clientele to impact her industry, the field of industrial engineering, or the U.S. economy more broadly”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“do not contain sufficient information and explanation ... to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed work offers broader implications in her field”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“none of the articles mention the Petitioner or her planned projects, or otherwise speak to the potential prospective impact of her specific proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
1,358coded 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 petitioner argued that general White House energy-security and STEM policy articles supported national importance; the AAO rejected this because the articles did not reference her or her specific proposed work. The AAO resolved the appeal entirely on prong one and expressly reserved prongs two and three as unnecessary to the decision.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
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