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 nutritionist, sought to start a business offering nutritional consulting, food-safety training, cooking classes, and seminars to schools and supermarkets.
Field: nutrition · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we do not find error in our finding on appeal that the Petitioner has not demonstrated the benefits to the regional or national economy from her proposed endeavor would reach the level of substantial positive effects”
“the services and training the Petitioner plans to provide benefit would benefit her clientele and website viewers.”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated disseminating her nutritional workshops, seminars, and webinars more broadly, even outside her clientele, would have broader implications for the field of nutrition.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the two signed letters submitted by the Petitioner on motion were previously submitted before the Director, so do not constitute "new facts"”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“these factors are not related to whether the proposed endeavor itself has national importance”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“Petitioner's counsel's assertions on motion regarding the company's dissemination of nutritional knowledge exceeds the intentions presented previously in the company's business plan”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does not constitute "new fact."”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
The Petitioner argued that potential to employ even a single U.S. worker should satisfy Dhanasar's 'substantial positive economic effects' language; the AAO rejected this reading, noting Dhanasar's plural 'workers' phrasing implies more than one hire is needed. The AAO also emphasized that counsel's new plans (research, policy work, broader dissemination) were unsupported by record evidence and exceeded what was presented in the original business plan, reiterating the Katigbak rule that eligibility must be shown as of filing.
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. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- Matter of Katigbak
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