dismissedOCT252023_01B52032023-10-25 · 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 organizational psychologist, proposed to establish a U.S.-based HR consultancy that would provide specialized human resources consulting services—supplemented by an AI system—to small and medium-sized businesses.

Field: organizational psychology / human resources consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

The Director had found the EB-2 advanced-degree threshold met, but the AAO disagreed that client reference letters qualified as employer letters under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1) and found the record unclear as to whether the Petitioner's self-employment constituted five years of continuous, progressive experience; the AAO did not resolve this issue since the appeal was dismissed on prong 1.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work; instead, we focus on the potential prospective impact of the specific endeavor”

“the business plan does not provide the basis or methodology for the estimates in sales or operating expenses”

“the Petitioner has not provided evidence to demonstrate that the creation of 29 jobs, even in an economically depressed area, would result in an economic impact commensurate with national importance”

“the Petitioner has not shown that her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her company and its clientele to impact the HR management industry or the U.S. economy at a level commensurate with national importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“the expert opinion letters are of little probative value as they conflate the importance of the HR consulting industry overall with the national importance of the Petitioner's specific endeavor”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“the business plan does not provide the basis or methodology for the estimates in sales or operating expenses”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“the letters are from clients, not employers”
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
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

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

The AAO criticized the four expert opinion letters as substantially similar, repetitive of general industry background, and not providing 'four separate, cumulative perspectives' despite the Petitioner's emphasis on their number; it also flagged an unresolved threshold EB-2 experience issue (client letters vs. employer letters) that it declined to decide because the case was resolved on prong 1.

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
8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
Matter of E-M-
Matter of L-A-C-

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Four expert letters and business plan discussed the HR industry's general importance, not the specific endeavor's prospective national-level impact, failing prong one.

Transferable lesson

Expert letters and business plans must analyze the specific proposed endeavor's projected scale and impact, not merely restate the field's overall importance.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · field_advancement

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer