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 attorney, proposed to provide conciliation and mediation services in the United States.
Field: law / alternative dispute resolution (conciliation and mediation services) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“her proposed conciliation and mediation services stand to sufficiently extend beyond her clients to affect the field of alternative dispute resolution more broadly”
“nor did it show that it has significant potential to employ US workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for the United States”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“did not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor ... has national importance”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
- motion resubmission · discounted
“does not establish new facts overcoming our prior determination and demonstrating the national importance”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
This is a second combined motion to reopen and reconsider (third-stage review after appeal dismissal and a prior motion dismissal). The AAO expressly declined to revisit prongs 2 and 3, having disposed of the case on prong 1 alone in earlier decisions. The petitioner raised an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel/accredited-representative claim, which the AAO rejected for failing to satisfy the Matter of Lozada procedural requirements and for being outside the scope of the motion (it related to the original SCOPS denial rather than the most recent decision). The AAO also rejected the petitioner's attempt to introduce a 'broadened' or updated version of the endeavor on motion to reopen as improperly expanding eligibility beyond the filing date.
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)(12)
- 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 Bardouille
- Matter of Coelho
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of O-S-G-
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