dismissedJAN222025_03B52032025-01-22 · combined · 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 sought to provide life sciences education, e-learning, and skill development/workforce training, claiming it would improve U.S. health, innovation, and economic security.
Field: life sciences education / healthcare · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record lacked sufficient detail and evidence to demonstrate the services offered by the proposed endeavor rose to the level of national importance”
“or that the endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or provide other substantial positive economic effects”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“he did not specify how we erred in applying the framework set forth in Matter of Dhanasar or submit sufficient evidence”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“has not presented new facts supported by documentary evidence with the instant motion”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the record lacked sufficient detail and evidence to demonstrate the services offered by the proposed endeavor rose to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“has not presented new facts supported by documentary evidence with the instant motion and has not demonstrated eligibility”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
2,589coded 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 the Petitioner's second combined motion to reopen/reconsider after an earlier motion was already dismissed; AAO explicitly limited its review to the latest decision only, per 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(ii), and found the Petitioner failed to identify any legal error or submit new evidence beyond reasserting prior arguments about scalability and economic impact.
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)(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 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