dismissedMAY152024_01B52032024-05-15 · 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 social worker with over 20 years of experience, proposed to start a business in Florida providing instruction, coordination, and training for family counseling, child welfare advocacy, and early learning education programs.
Field: social work / family counseling and early childhood education · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“she did not meet the national importance requirement of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework”
“The Petitioner does not support these assertions with sufficient independent, objective evidence.”
“Rather, the Petitioner's professional plan provides generalized projections that are not specific and detailed enough to establish the potential prospective impact of her proposed endeavor.”
“the report does not specifically discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
“this does not necessarily establish the national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
“The Petitioner's projection of creating six jobs does not demonstrate a significant potential to employ U.S. workers”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“generalized projections that are not specific and detailed enough to establish the potential prospective impact”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters describe the Petitioner's job duties, rather than describing achievements that had broad implications”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the report does not specifically discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
- certification membership · ignored
All 6 evidence items
- other · discounted
“does not meaningfully address the details of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor and why it would have national importance”
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
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
Footnote 4 includes an alternative holding stating that even if the AAO had reached prongs 2 and 3, it would still have dismissed the appeal because the petitioner presented no new evidence on appeal beyond what was already found deficient by the Director.
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. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, an aircraft mechanic and instructor, proposed to enhance aviation maintenance training programs, support
- The Petitioner seeks EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree with a national inter
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver of the job offer requirement, but the substance of the proposed e
- The Beneficiary, sponsored by a private airline, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability in a
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; the sp