dismissedDEC042024_01B52032024-12-04 · 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, a compliance manager, proposed to serve as investor and CEO of a U.S. company providing anti-money-laundering compliance consultancy and training services to financial businesses, initially planned for Florida.
Field: anti-money laundering compliance / financial regulation · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we focus, not on the specific area or field at issue, but the specific endeavor a petitioner proposes to undertake”
“the Petitioner's business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of her economic projections, including revenue and job creation”
“the economic assertions made on motion contain figures regarding small business economy in Florida but do not provide sufficient information or explanation to establish her own proposed endeavor would have substantial positive effects in that environment”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the potential prospective impact of her specific endeavor would impact the financial regulation and compliance industries more broadly, at a level of national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of her economic projections, including revenue and job creation”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“do not state new facts and therefore do not constitute "new facts" for the purposes of a motion to reopen”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“does not mention the Petitioner, her company, or otherwise speak to the potential prospective impact of her own proposed endeavor”
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
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
A footnote explicitly declines to consider the Petitioner's prong-2 style arguments (professional background, superior performance) on motion because the second Dhanasar prong was never reached or discussed in the prior appeal decision, so it fell outside the scope of the motion.
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)(i)
- 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)
- Matter of Coelho
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