dismissedSEP192024_09B52032024-09-19 · 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 establish a financial and pricing consulting services firm headquartered in Utah with additional business units in Nevada and Arizona, providing business structuring, financial management, and pricing/revenue analysis for small and medium enterprises, including in SBA HUBZone areas.
Field: financial and pricing consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not show the prospective impact of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor beyond her own clients for which she would provide her services”
“these projections do not indicate that the business would affect the economy at a regionally or nationally important level”
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact to the field have little probative value”
“the Petitioner does not offer a sufficiently direct evidentiary tie between her proposed business's financial services work and the claimed economic results”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“these projections do not indicate that the business would affect the economy at a regionally or nationally important level”
AAO decision text - resume experience · ignored
- recommendation letter · ignored
- other · discounted
“she has not established this claim through independent and objective evidence”
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
- 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 cited Flores v. Garland and other circuit court cases in a footnote regarding the discretionary nature of NIW decisions. The decision explicitly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 as prong 1 was dispositive, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for this practice.
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
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
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