The Petitioner proposed to operate a real estate and construction business.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not establish how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor of real estate and construction stands to extend sufficiently beyond his business and potential clients at a level commensurate with national importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• motion resubmission · ignored

  “a motion to reconsider must establish that the prior decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the decision”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

This is a second motion to reconsider after a prior appeal and prior motion to reconsider were both dismissed; the AAO found the Petitioner merely repeated verbatim language from prior briefs without identifying any legal or policy error, consistent with Matter of O-S-G-, and declined to consider newly submitted documentary evidence because motions to reconsider are limited to the record at the time of the prior decision.

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
• Matter of O-S-G-

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