The Petitioner sought to start a company manufacturing and selling eco-friendly furniture from reused materials using advanced wood-processing technology, and to offer sustainability consulting services to other U.S. furniture manufacturers.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we did not mention it was the primary basis of his claim, and we addressed several other aspects of his national importance claim”

“did not offer a sufficiently direct evidentiary tie between his proposed endeavor and the claimed economic results”

“These numbers do not establish substantial positive economic effects.”

“did not demonstrate the prospective impact directly attributable to his proposed endeavor or establish how his company will impact the industry beyond his customers and the operations of his business”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “These numbers do not establish substantial positive economic effects.”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · discounted

  “the Petitioner has not provided arguments on motion to overcome our prior determination”

  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

Notable

This is a motion to reconsider following a prior AAO appellate dismissal; the AAO's analysis is entirely procedural, evaluating whether the prior decision misapplied law/policy rather than re-analyzing the merits de novo. The Petitioner argued the AAO applied a standard higher than preponderance of the evidence by requiring a 'guarantee' of economic results; the AAO rejected this characterization.

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 E-M-

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