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 initially proposed to serve as majority owner and general manager of a pet-care franchise; on appeal she attempted to substitute a new endeavor as CEO and lead marketing consultant of a different enterprise.
Field: business/franchise management (pet care/grooming; also marketing/management consulting) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not include evidence showing that the Petitioner's ownership and operation of this franchise would be of substantial merit in the areas of entrepreneurial ism or business.”
“the projected employment figures presented in the business plan are not supported by relevant data or analysis.”
“The Petitioner has not shown that her planned ownership and management of a pet food and grooming franchise would have substantial positive economic effects, or would have national or even global implications within that industry.”
“it is the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor that is the focus of the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, not the broader industry or field in which it will operate.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the projected employment figures presented in the business plan are not supported by relevant data or analysis.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · ignored
“these factors are not relevant to whether her proposed endeavor is of national importance.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO refused to consider a materially different business plan/endeavor submitted for the first time on appeal, citing Matter of Izummi's bar on material changes and the requirement that eligibility be established at time of filing; declined to reach EB-2 threshold classification or prongs 2/3 because prong 1 failure was dispositive.
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. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner materially changed her proposed endeavor on appeal (new business plan post-denial), and the properly considered franchise endeavor lacked evidence of substantial merit or national importance, including unsupported job-creation claims.
Fix and fully evidence the specific endeavor at filing; do not pivot business plans on appeal, and support job/economic impact claims with data showing national-scale significance.
vague
economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic
person_focused
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