dismissedAUG222024_04B52032024-08-22 · 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 proposed to found a marketing consulting company in Florida, with plans to expand into Texas and North Carolina and grow staff from three to eleven employees within five years.

Field: marketing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the endeavor's impact appears to be limited to the organizations and clients her company would serve”

“the record does not establish how the proposed endeavor may have national or even global implications within the field of marketing or any other particular field, or how the proposed endeavor may have significant potential to employ U.S. workers”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“we explained why the evidence does not establish how the proposed endeavor may have national importance under the preponderance of evidence standard”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not inform how the potential prospective impact of the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have national importance”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“they do not address the Petitioner; the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake; and how the proposed endeavor may have national or even global implications”
AAO decision text
motion resubmission · discounted
“the brief the Petitioner submitted in support of the motion to reconsider is essentially the same brief she submitted in support of her appeal, with many passages of verbatim language”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

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

The AAO dismissed the motion to reconsider primarily because the Petitioner's motion brief was essentially identical to the prior appeal brief, and because the Petitioner misstated the requirements of 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(8), incorrectly claiming adjudicators must request clarifying evidence rather than being permitted to deny for insufficient evidence.

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)(8)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
Matter of L-A-C-
Matter of O-S-G-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer