dismissedDEC062023_04B52032023-12-06 · 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, a human resources operations and business development specialist, proposed an endeavor in that field, supported by a business plan, but did not specify further details in this motion decision.
Field: human resources operations and business development · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we concluded the Petitioner did not show how his endeavor would have broader implications in the field or would have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or other substantial positive economic effects”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“simply disagreeing with our conclusions, or "hold[ing] a different opinion"”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“simply disagreeing with our conclusions, or "hold[ing] a different opinion"”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“a motion to reconsider is not a process by which the party may submit in essence, the same brief and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
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 following a prior AAO appellate dismissal; the AAO found the Petitioner merely restated disagreement without identifying legal or policy error, and reaffirmed the original prong 1 national importance failure without reaching prongs 2 or 3.
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)
- Matter of O-S-G-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution