dismissedSEP082023_02B52032023-09-08 · 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 public policy consultant specializing in international development, planned to continue consulting for think tanks, international organizations, or her own newly-started consulting firm, focusing on economic development projects in Central Asia, former Soviet states, and other developing regions.

Field: public policy / international development consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not shown that her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her future U.S . employer or consulting clientele to impact her field or U.S. economic and security interests more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”

“the Petitioner 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.”

“do not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that her specific proposed work as public policy consultant offers broader implications”

“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."”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“do not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that her specific proposed work ... offers broader implications”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“she did not state that she planned to engage in this particular project in Kazakhstan or provide supporting evidence relating to her future involvement in the project”
AAO decision text
other · credited

Where this case turned

Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
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
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

2,501coded 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 separated prong-one national importance analysis from prong-two personal-qualification evidence, noting in a footnote that the Petitioner's publication record and prior project experience relate to prong two rather than establishing national importance of the specific proposed endeavor; declined to reach prong three as the prong-one failure was independently dispositive.

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.

Matter of L-A-C-
Poursina v. USCIS

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show her consulting work would extend beyond her own clients/employer to impact the field, economy, or security interests at a nationally significant scale.

Transferable lesson

Tie the proposed endeavor to concrete, quantifiable national-level impact (jobs, economic effects, policy adoption) rather than general field importance or personal credentials.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

economic_growth_generic · us_competitiveness · economic_job_creation

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer