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, a financial specialist, proposed an endeavor described in a business plan that the AAO found primarily benefited his employers and customers rather than the broader national interest.
Field: finance · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“We observed that the Petitioner appeared to have materially changed his proposed endeavor in response to a request for evidence”
“the Petitioner had not established how his proposed endeavor, as originally stated at the time of filing, has broader implications beyond benefit to his employers and customers”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner appeared to have materially changed his proposed endeavor in response to a request for evidence”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · ignored
“the Petitioner does not state any new facts and does not submit any new documentary evidence”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
Notable
Petitioner made a confused constitutional argument invoking the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable searches and seizures) when apparently meaning the Fifth Amendment (due process), which the AAO corrected in a footnote. The motion was dismissed on purely procedural grounds (no new facts/evidence for reopening; no showing of legal/policy error for reconsideration) without substantive re-examination of the merits beyond restating the prior appellate decision's prong-one finding.
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)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- Matter of Coelho
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
- The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
- The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
- The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
- The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod