dismissedAPR222024_04B52032024-04-22 · combined · 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 proposed to establish a bakery in Florida to introduce Brazilian culinary traditions, with a special focus on sweets, to Americans.
Field: food service / bakery / hospitality · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“it does not establish how the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have the type of broader implications contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong”
“they do not address the Petitioner, "the specific endeavor that [she] proposes to undertake," and how the specific endeavor may have the type of broader implications”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- other · discounted
“they are immaterial to the issue of whether the proposed endeavor may have national importance”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the Petitioner does not assert-and they do not support the conclusion-that they are material to the first Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the Petitioner does not assert-and they do not support the conclusion-that they are material to the first Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · ignored
“We need not address the Petitioner's references to information already in the record on motion to reopen because the scope of review... is limited to "new facts."”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
1,581coded 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
This decision addresses a combined motion to reopen and reconsider a prior AAO appeal dismissal; the AAO declines to reach prongs 2 and 3 as unnecessary given dispositive failure on prong 1, and rejects new evidence (social media info, tax return, recommendation letter) as material only to prong 2, not the dispositive prong 1 issue.
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)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Coelho
- Matter of L-A-C-
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