dismissedOCT262021_01B52032021-10-26 · appeal · Nebraska 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 sought to operate her own company providing business consulting services on legal and industry matters related to business transactions, mergers and acquisitions, and foreign direct investments.
Field: business/legal consulting on foreign direct investment and M&A · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her company, partnerships, and clientele to impact her field or the industry more broadly”
“she has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation”
“the Petitioner does not explain how these staffing and revenue forecasts were calculated or provide evidence to support them”
“she has not offered sufficient evidence that the area where they will operate is economically depressed”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner does not explain how these staffing and revenue forecasts were calculated or provide evidence to support them”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the Petitioner has not submitted evidence to demonstrate that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's undertakings would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“The Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and experience in his field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
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
AAO explicitly declines to reach prongs 2 and 3 after finding prong 1 dispositive, and notes each independent basis is offered as an alternate holding despite only prong 1 being substantively analyzed. Decision contains OCR redactions of company name and figures.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Poursina v. USCIS
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