dismissedSEP202021_05B52032021-09-20 · 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 continue working in plant management and, through his own consulting business, advise U.S. manufacturers and production companies on project, cost, and operations management.
Field: general and operations management / consulting · 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 his company, partnerships, and clientele to impact his field or the industry more broadly”
“the Petitioner does not explain how these staffing and revenue forecasts were calculated or provide evidence to support them”
“he has not shown that his project's future staffing levels and business activity stand to provide substantial economic benefits in Florida or the United States”
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 - contract revenue · discounted
“has not submitted evidence to demonstrate that benefits to the regional or national economy... would reach the level of substantial positive economic effects”
AAO decision text - other · credited
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
1,358coded 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 expressly states its national importance finding is an independent and alternate basis for dismissal, obviating need to reach prongs 2 and 3; cites Poursina v. USCIS on discretionary nature of NIW grants.
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)
- 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