dismissedSEP142021_04B52032021-09-14 · 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, a travel management specialist with a background in the tourism industry, sought to be self-employed in the U.S. through a newly registered company offering consulting services such as tourism product development, marketing, and investment consulting to travel agencies and tour operators.

Field: travel management / tourism · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

AAO withdrew the Director's finding that the Petitioner's bachelor's degrees and experience qualified as equivalent to an advanced degree, because none of her past tourism positions required a bachelor's degree as a minimum entry requirement; declined to reach exceptional ability determination since appeal was dismissed on other grounds.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“she did not establish "the effect a single travel management specialist can have on the industry"”

“The national importance of the tourism industry as a whole does not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, in particular, has national importance.”

“Because the submitted information provides conflicting information about the proposed endeavor, the exact nature of that endeavor remains in question.”

“The Petitioner's business plan for I Idoes not anticipate a particularly large staff: and therefore the company would not be a major employer.”

“The Petitioner's assertions about the national importance of the proposed endeavor amount to generalities and speculation, rather than specific, corroborated information about the impact of her proposed work in particular.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“it is premature, at best, to attest to the expertise of a team which has not yet been assembled, hired, or even identified”
AAO decision text
media · discounted
“the article does not provide enough information to show that the ventures are similar to one another”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“this information does not show what she intends to do in the United States”
AAO decision text
other · ignored
“This evidence does not establish eligibility at the time of filing, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1)”
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
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

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 withdrew the Director's favorable threshold finding on advanced-degree equivalency sua sponte (an unusual reversal of a finding favorable to the petitioner), but did not make it dispositive since it dismissed on national importance grounds instead. Also notable: business plan contained internally inconsistent, apparently boilerplate/marketing language (second-person pronouns, references to a nonexistent team) that AAO used to discredit its reliability, and a submitted 'New York Times' article was actually an unattributed promotional piece for an investment platform.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
Matter of L-A-C-
Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer