dismissedFEB132025_06B52032025-02-13 · motion_reopen · 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 grocery store providing fresh healthy food staples, cooked meals, and packaged prepared meals to address food insecurity and obesity in her community.
Field: grocery/food retail industry, food security · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the prospective impact of the Petitioner's endeavor did not extend beyond her customers and employees to impact the field more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance”
“while such evidence demonstrates the substantial merit of her endeavor, it does not establish the prospective impact of her specific endeavor”
“the record did not provide sufficient support for these projections, nor did she establish that these projections would result in substantial positive economic benefits as contemplated in Dhanasar”
“she does not acknowledge or address our determination that she did not support these projections, or otherwise establish how her prospective employment projections would impact the area of operations”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not establish that her endeavor will lead to broader implications beyond her immediate customers”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the record did not provide sufficient support for these projections”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“it does not establish the prospective impact of her specific endeavor”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner reiterates her claims previously made before the Director and 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
1,358coded 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
The bulk of this decision addresses a claim of ineffective assistance of prior counsel under the Lozada framework (used to excuse an untimely motion to reopen filed 118 days after the AAO's appeal dismissal), before separately addressing the merits of the underlying national importance argument, which was found unchanged by the new evidence submitted.
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)(2)
- 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