dismissedSEP202023_07B52032023-09-20 · 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.
A psychologist sought to work as a corporate human resource counselor in the U.S. through her own company, offering a proprietary counseling/emotional-support methodology to businesses.
Field: human resources / psychology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“the Petitioner does not point to any corroborating evidence that would directly link her specific endeavor to the overall economy's growth”
“the letters discuss the impact of the Petitioner's work to their own experiences rather than the required broad impact to the business and finance sector”
“the Petitioner has not established that her proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the Petitioner's skills, expertise, and abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner did not provide evidence to demonstrate how her business operations will have significant potential to employ U.S. workers”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“these two petitioners sought employment-based first preference (EB-1) immigrant classification, which is different from the EB-2 immigrant classification”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
- 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
Petitioner cited two unpublished AAO EB-1 extraordinary-ability decisions as persuasive; AAO rejected these as non-precedential and distinguishable by classification. Petitioner also raised an argument that 20 C.F.R. 656.3 makes it legally impossible for an entrepreneur to self-file a labor certification; AAO reserved this issue as moot given the dispositive prong-1 finding.
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 E-M-
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution