dismissedAUG202026_01B52032026-08-20 · appeal
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.
Establish a one-person consulting company somewhere in California to train industrial, automotive and metal-mechanic workers, funded by about $100,000 from a severance payout and the sale of family vehicles.
Field: workforce training for industrial, automotive and metal-mechanic sectors · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“he did not provide sufficient details about the endeavor he proposes to undertake, nor did he support his generalized assertions with probative documentary evidence”
“His business plan does not elaborate on further details about his proposed consulting services company beyond a generalized goal to work in the field.”
“the record precludes a meaningful assessment of whether the proposed endeavor would have significant potential to employ U.S. workers”
“the publications do not address the Petitioner, the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake”
“the letters of recommendation do not inform how the prospective, proposed endeavor may have the type of broader implications”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“does not elaborate on further details about his proposed consulting services company beyond a generalized goal to work in the field”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“they are immaterial to determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they are material to the second Dhanasar prong”
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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
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 itemized the operational details a business plan normally contains and this one omitted: location, client count, fees, revenue, employees, expenses. Plan to publish unspecified 'findings' at unidentified conferences dismissed. Business plan mentioned no employee other than the petitioner.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
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