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, an environmental specialist with a master's in public policy, proposed to operate her own consulting business advising private companies and public/government/international bodies on reducing environmental impact and developing environmental policy in the United States.
Field: environmental policy/consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“these documents were not created until after the Director issued the RFE in February 2022”
“the letters do not include a description of the services the Petitioner offers to demonstrate that the services relate to her proposed endeavor”
“the letters do not provide specific examples indicating that the Petitioner's work has impacted the field or led to the creation of an environmental policy or change in existing policy or practice”
“The Petitioner did not submit evidence to support this claim, such as agreements with the small businesses or sports event promoters”
“The business plan identifies only two major markets in the industry - private industries and households - and does not discuss the Petitioner's planned involvement with local, federal or international government bodies”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not provide specific examples indicating that the Petitioner's work has impacted the field”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“this evidence does not demonstrate the Petitioner's eligibility at the time of filing”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the letters do not include a description of the services the Petitioner offers”
AAO decision text - resume experience · credited
- degree · credited
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
- Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
Notable
AAO affirmed the Director's finding on prong 1 (favorable to Petitioner) but reversed on the timing/relevance of RFE-response evidence (business plan, letters of intent) as post-filing and thus not probative of eligibility at time of filing; prong 3 expressly not reached.
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(12)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of Katigbak
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed prong 2: business plan, client letters of intent, and progress evidence postdated filing or lacked detail, and none showed movement toward the government/international-agency work central to her stated endeavor.
Build and document readiness (contracts, business plan, government-sector engagement) before filing, and ensure it specifically matches every stated component of the proposed endeavor.
vague
field_advancement · government_interest
person_focused
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