dismissedOCT192023_02B52032023-10-19 · 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, a human talent administration engineer, proposed to start a consulting and advisory business providing labor-law compliance analysis and training plans to U.S. companies with 5 to 500 employees, beginning in Florida and expanding to other states.
Field: human resources / talent management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we also find that the Petitioner initially offered vague and generic statements about his endeavor”
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“none of the articles or reports provided in the initial filing specifically referenced the Petitioner's endeavor and how it will directly impact the field or the U.S. economy”
“he has not provided persuasive details concerning how he intends to grow his company”
“does not sufficiently demonstrate the basis for its financial projections”
“this single letter of interest does not corroborate the nature or numerosity of clients or clients' projects to support the claims that his endeavor will have substantial economic impact”
“the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's endeavor has broad implications to the field or that it would offer substantial economic effects”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“do not provide details regarding the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or how it will specifically impact the field”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“does not sufficiently demonstrate the basis for its financial projections”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“this single letter of interest does not corroborate the nature or numerosity of clients or clients' projects”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
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 →
Notable
Petitioner alleged the Director exhibited negative bias and acted arbitrarily/capriciously in the denial, and argued economic-impact projections are not legally required under Prong 1; the AAO rejected these procedural/legal arguments and affirmed the Director's approach as consistent with Dhanasar's framework for evaluating economic effects and job creation.
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
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution