dismissedAUG222024_02B52032024-08-22 · motion_reconsider · 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 sought to advance his work as a business and content manager through his own travel company, focused on providing diverse, inclusive, and accessible tourism experiences for LGBTQI+ individuals.
Field: tourism/travel industry (LGBTQI+ inclusive tourism) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“our assessment of national importance does not focus on the importance of a field or issues affecting our nation, but instead "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
“We explained that none of the articles or reports referenced the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
“the Petitioner's projected employment of nine individuals was insufficient to demonstrate the Petitioner's company would have substantial economic benefits to the United States”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- other · discounted
“our assessment of national importance...focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“did not indicate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would have national or even global implications or other broader implications”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“insufficient to demonstrate the Petitioner's company would have substantial economic benefits to the United States”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“does not identify any specific error of law or misapplication of policy in our assessment of this evidence”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
2,501coded 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 is a motion to reconsider a prior AAO appellate dismissal (not the initial denial); the AAO's analysis focuses narrowly on whether the prior decision misapplied law/policy, incorporating the prior decision's prong 1 findings by reference rather than conducting fresh prong analysis.
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)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
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