AAO found the Petitioner failed to show how her consulting business would affect the economy beyond her immediate clients or reach the level of substantial positive economic effects contemplated by Dhanasar. Projected revenues and job creation figures were insufficient to demonstrate regional or national impact, and claims of transforming industry practices lacked independent corroborating evidence.
为什么值得参考
对照裁决如何区分“领域整体重要”与“申请人具体工作将产生的未来影响”。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO found the Petitioner failed to show how her consulting business would affect the economy beyond her immediate clients or reach the level of substantial positive economic effects contemplated by Dhanasar. Projected revenues and job creation figures were insufficient to demonstrate regional or national impact, and claims of transforming industry practices lacked independent corroborating evidence.
AAO found that the Petitioner's business plan projections were unsupported by objective evidence and that operating one firm in a multi-billion-dollar industry did not demonstrate national-level economic impact. The business plan did not show prospective national impact on the IT/STEM field or on the broader economy, and letters of interest were nonbinding and insufficient.
为什么值得参考
对照裁决如何区分“领域整体重要”与“申请人具体工作将产生的未来影响”。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO found that the Petitioner's business plan projections were unsupported by objective evidence and that operating one firm in a multi-billion-dollar industry did not demonstrate national-level economic impact. The business plan did not show prospective national impact on the IT/STEM field or on the broader economy, and letters of interest were nonbinding and insufficient.
The Petitioner failed to provide sufficient explanation of his innovation or 'new benchmarks' for the design industry, and did not show how his services would extend beyond prospective clients to impact the industry or U.S. economy at a level commensurate with national importance. No new evidence or arguments were offered on appeal to overcome the Director's determination.
为什么值得参考
对照裁决如何区分“领域整体重要”与“申请人具体工作将产生的未来影响”。
查看完整裁决理由 +
The Petitioner failed to provide sufficient explanation of his innovation or 'new benchmarks' for the design industry, and did not show how his services would extend beyond prospective clients to impact the industry or U.S. economy at a level commensurate with national importance. No new evidence or arguments were offered on appeal to overcome the Director's determination.
AAO agreed the endeavor has substantial merit in the area of business and entrepreneurialism, but found the Petitioner failed to establish national importance. The business plan projections lacked a sufficient basis and detail, the HUBZone location argument was unsupported, the alignment with federal STEM and tech initiatives was too general to demonstrate national importance specific to the Company, and the expert letter a…
为什么值得参考
对照裁决如何区分“领域整体重要”与“申请人具体工作将产生的未来影响”。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO agreed the endeavor has substantial merit in the area of business and entrepreneurialism, but found the Petitioner failed to establish national importance. The business plan projections lacked a sufficient basis and detail, the HUBZone location argument was unsupported, the alignment with federal STEM and tech initiatives was too general to demonstrate national importance specific to the Company, and the expert letter addressed the broader tech industry rather than the Company's particular national importance.
AAO agreed substantial merit was established but found Petitioner did not show his consulting/training endeavor would impact the field, region, or national economy broadly. Staffing and revenue projections were unsupported, and his skills/experience pertain to prong two rather than the endeavor's importance.
为什么值得参考
对照裁决如何区分“领域整体重要”与“申请人具体工作将产生的未来影响”。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO agreed substantial merit was established but found Petitioner did not show his consulting/training endeavor would impact the field, region, or national economy broadly. Staffing and revenue projections were unsupported, and his skills/experience pertain to prong two rather than the endeavor's importance.
Petitioner's experience and knowledge as a police officer relate to prong two, not the prospective impact of the endeavor. The support letters from satisfied clients/potential partners do not establish a sufficiently direct connection between his security consulting services and any nationally important impact.
为什么值得参考
对照裁决如何区分“领域整体重要”与“申请人具体工作将产生的未来影响”。
查看完整裁决理由 +
Petitioner's experience and knowledge as a police officer relate to prong two, not the prospective impact of the endeavor. The support letters from satisfied clients/potential partners do not establish a sufficiently direct connection between his security consulting services and any nationally important impact.
AAO agreed the endeavor has substantial merit but found Petitioner did not show the Beneficiary's specific work as a M&E senior advisor would have prospective impact extending beyond his employer at a level commensurate with national importance. The submitted articles do not mention the Beneficiary or his specific work, and recommendation letters do not sufficiently address his future endeavor.
为什么值得参考
对照裁决如何区分“领域整体重要”与“申请人具体工作将产生的未来影响”。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO agreed the endeavor has substantial merit but found Petitioner did not show the Beneficiary's specific work as a M&E senior advisor would have prospective impact extending beyond his employer at a level commensurate with national importance. The submitted articles do not mention the Beneficiary or his specific work, and recommendation letters do not sufficiently address his future endeavor.
AAO found that the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor has national importance, distinguishing his case from Dhanasar because he failed to demonstrate broader implications in his field. The Petitioner's motion did not show how AAO misapplied law or policy.
为什么值得参考
对照裁决如何区分“领域整体重要”与“申请人具体工作将产生的未来影响”。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO found that the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor has national importance, distinguishing his case from Dhanasar because he failed to demonstrate broader implications in his field. The Petitioner's motion did not show how AAO misapplied law or policy.