dismissedAUG192024_01B52032024-08-19 · combined · Nebraska 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 planned to own and operate a New York-based cargo delivery and transportation company, growing to 15 vehicles and 29 employees by Year 5, with aspirations to expand to Canada and Eastern Europe.
Field: dispatch and delivery services / transportation logistics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her employees and clients to impact the delivery and transportation services industry more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance”
“The business plan at pages 19 and 20 describe the importance of the long-distance freight trucking industry generally, but it does not address the Petitioner's specific endeavor”
“The Petitioner's business plan's projections concerning the business are not supported by probative evidence to establish the growth estimates forecasted.”
“she has not provided evidence to show that she would employ a significant population of workers in the region”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan's projections concerning the business are not supported by probative evidence to establish the growth estimates forecasted”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“her employment history and expertise in customs law 'would be beneficial to her proposed international transportation business' ... unavailing”
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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground
1,358coded 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
AAO treated failure to challenge prong 3 on appeal as waiver/abandonment, independently dispositive alongside prong 1 failure; case arose from dismissal of combined motion to reopen/reconsider rather than a fresh denial.
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. 103.3
- 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-
- Matter of O-R-E-
- Matter of R-A-M-
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