dismissedFEB232023_01B52032023-02-23 · appeal · 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 proposed a body-positivity/cultural development project involving social media community building (Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube), content creation, and later a company to employ social media managers, project curators, and project managers.
Field: social/cultural media project (body-positive social movement) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“is not well-defined,"the record does not establish the location where she would be pursuing the proposed endeavor”
“provided no documentation to demonstrate job creation in the U.S.”
“the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance”
“it appears [her] proposed endeavor does not stand to sufficiently extend beyond her own business to impact [s]ocial and [c]ultural [m]anagement more broadly”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“presents a new set of facts material to eligibility for the requested benefit that the Petitioner did not present at the time of filing”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“is not supported by documentary evidence or a means of corroborating the Petitioner's assertions”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · ignored
“cannot establish eligibility”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“reasserts information in the business plan for her company submitted in response to the Director's RFE, which cannot establish eligibility”
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
- 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
AAO rejected post-filing business formation and business plan as an impermissible 'new set of facts' under Matter of Katigbak/Izummi, since the company was incorporated after the petition filing date; AAO declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 after finding prong 1 dispositive.
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)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
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