dismissedOCT282024_02B52032024-10-28 · 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 sought to provide business, administration, and consulting services through his own company, with a particular focus on patient blood management consulting.
Field: business consulting (patient blood management) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record lacks evidence showing that the Petitioner's work as an entrepreneur would have implications for his field or for the U.S. economy on a national scale”
“the Petitioner did not adequately explain how he intends to realize the business plan's staffing and revenue projections”
“the letters did not include information about the proposed endeavor or explain how it is nationally important”
“Evidence of the Petitioner's credentials and experience in business consulting does not demonstrate the national importance of the proposed endeavor or establish that the impact of the endeavor would extend beyond the Petitioner's clients and employees”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“did not adequately explain how he intends to realize the business plan's staffing and revenue projections”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters did not include information about the proposed endeavor or explain how it is nationally important”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“such evidence addresses the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, education, and experience; these are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“none of these submissions pertain specifically to the endeavor in question, but rather more broadly discuss employment and wages”
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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- 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 decision notes the Petitioner previously filed two prior I-140 NIW petitions that were denied, with appeals and motions dismissed on one of them, showing a pattern of repeated unsuccessful filings. The AAO adopted and affirmed the Director's decision under Matter of Burbano rather than conducting a fully independent analysis.
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
- Chen v. INS
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