dismissedOCT252024_02B52032024-10-25 · 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, a human resources and organizational development consultant, proposed to provide HR consultancy and organizational development services, later expanded on appeal to include talent pipeline planning, workforce readiness training, and services for U.S. Foreign Service and global development institutions through a newly formed company.

Field: human resources and organizational development · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

“Although the Petitioner discusses the value and importance of human resource and organizational development consultancy services and its impact on the U.S. economy and society, Dhanasar requires us to focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake," not the importance of the field, industry, or profession.”

“the Petitioner did not show that her proposed endeavor would result in significant job growth or "substantial positive economic effects" as contemplated by Dhanasar.”

“the business plan, documents related to her newly established company, and additional recommendation letters, are dated subsequent to the filing date of the instant petition in February 2024.”

“A visa petition may not be approved based on speculation of future eligibility or after a petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“the Petitioner's skills, expertise, and abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“are dated subsequent to the filing date of the instant petition in February 2024”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's skills, expertise, and abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text
media · discounted
“are dated subsequent to the filing date of the instant petition in February 2024”
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

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 Petitioner submitted a new business plan, newly established company documents, and additional recommendation letters on appeal, but the AAO rejected these because they postdated the filing date, citing the rule against approving petitions based on speculation of future eligibility or facts arising after filing (Matter of Katigbak).

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
Flores v. Garland
Matter of Katigbak
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer