dismissedFEB182025_05B52032025-02-18 · motion_reconsider · Nebraska 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 initially proposed an unspecified endeavor at filing, then revised it in response to an RFE to describe starting his own business, which AAO deemed a material change from the original petition.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“We reviewed the proposed endeavor as described with the initial petition and concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit or national importance”
“the business plan, which was submitted in response to an RFE, amounted to a material change to the petition”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan...amounted to a material change to the petition”
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
- 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 a prior AAO appeal decision, not a fresh appeal; the underlying merits issue was a material change in proposed endeavor (from unspecified initial endeavor to a self-started business revealed only in RFE response), which barred consideration of prong 1 as revised. The Petitioner's motion was dismissed for failing to identify legal or factual error, merely restating disagreement.
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. 103.2(b)(12)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- 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