dismissedDEC162024_03B52032024-12-16 · appeal · 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 company providing Brazilian ultra-high-net-worth individuals with U.S. investment opportunities, focused on buying land, building residential properties, and future growth in private equity, stocks, and bonds.
Field: real estate investment management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the matter here is not whether these initiatives, as well as the topics of the housing supply and shortage, or similarly related subjects, are nationally important”
“The Petitioner did not demonstrate how his business would largely influence the field and rise to the level of national importance.”
“the Petitioner did not present any supporting evidence, corroborating the assertions and figures.”
“the Petitioner did not establish that such employment figures would utilize a significant population of workers in the area or would substantially impact job creation and economic growth”
“the record does not demonstrate that, beyond the limited benefits provided to its prospective clients and employees, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has broader implications rising to the level of having national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner did not present any supporting evidence, corroborating the assertions and figures”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“his submission of industry reports and articles covers a wide range of topics ... rather than establishing the national importance of his particular professional services”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · ignored
“we will not consider it for the first time on appeal”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“we will not consider it for the first time on appeal”
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
1,312coded 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
AAO declined to consider new evidence (construction project documentation and support letters) submitted for the first time on appeal, citing Matter of Soriano and the requirement that evidence be submitted together before the denial. The Petitioner's argument that the Director applied an improperly heightened standard of proof was rejected.
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. 103.3
- Flores v. Garland
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