dismissedDEC042024_07B52032024-12-04 · 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 operate a consulting and advising company focused on facilitating internationalization of business between Brazil and the United States, offering strategic planning, market analysis, regulatory/legal advice, HR consulting, contracts support, and training.
Field: international business consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we concluded that the record did not establish its national importance under the Dhanasar framework”
“she did not provide a basis for her company's projected employment and financial calculations, and identified discrepancies between the projected financials in the record”
“the record did not show how any training, even if beneficial to her direct clients, would result in broader implications to her field”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the record did not establish these projections showed her company would result in substantial positive economic effects”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“The Petitioner cannot meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider by broadly disagreeing with our conclusions”
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
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
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
This is a motion to reconsider following a prior AAO appellate dismissal; the AAO's analysis focuses on whether the prior decision erred, reaffirming the original prong 1 finding was correct and criticizing the Petitioner for generally disagreeing rather than identifying legal/factual error, consistent with Matter of O-S-G- standard.
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
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of O-S-G-
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