dismissedSEP302024_18B52032024-09-30 · 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 certified accountant, planned to develop an accounting consulting services firm in Florida offering tax preparation, business auditing, and payroll management, with plans to open three offices over five years.
Field: accounting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found the Petitioner qualified for underlying EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; this was not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we find the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her clientele to impact the financial services industry, the accounting industry, or otherwise impact economic initiatives more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”
“the Dhanasar framework instructs us to evaluate the impact of the specific proposed endeavor, rather than the field or industry generally.”
“While the business plan outlines the intent to hire fifty employees and reach a significant revenue target, these figures are not explained”
“she has not shown that her company's future staffing levels, business activity, associated tax revenue, and financial initiatives stand to provide substantial economic benefits in Florida or in the United States generally.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“these figures are not explained; similarly, the Petitioner does not indicate how she calculated the expected number of hours worked per year”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · ignored
- resume experience · discounted
“these factors are not sufficient to show national importance.”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“the Dhanasar framework instructs us to evaluate the impact of the specific proposed endeavor, rather than the field or industry generally.”
AAO decision text - degree · 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
- 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
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 noted a discrepancy between the business plan's stated headquarters location in a 'qualified Hub Zone' in Pompano Beach and the actual incorporation address in Boca Raton, undermining the economically-distressed-area argument.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
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