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 Ph.D. industrial engineering professor and researcher, proposed to establish an industrial engineering consultancy business in the United States.
Field: industrial engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“she did not support her claims of the economic and societal benefits of her proposed endeavor with documentary evidence”
“the recommendation letters she provided lauded her work as a teacher and researcher, they did not demonstrate the potential prospective impact of her ownership of a consulting business”
“This new version of the business plan cannot establish the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver...at the time her petition was filed”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the addition of these new sections to the previously submitted business plan does not constitute new facts as required for a motion to reopen”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they did not demonstrate the potential prospective impact of her ownership of a consulting business”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“new eligibility claims advanced for the first time to an administrative appellate body...are not properly before us”
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
- Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
Notable
This is a post-appeal combined motion decision that turns entirely on procedural motion standards rather than fresh substantive prong analysis. The AAO holds that a revised/expanded business plan submitted on motion does not constitute 'new facts' under 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2), distinguishing new evidentiary facts from new theories of eligibility, citing Matter of M-F-O- (BIA) and Matter of Katigbak on the 'eligibility at time of filing' rule. The prior appellate finding that the endeavor lacked national importance (p1) was never disturbed and remains the operative basis underlying both motion denials.
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. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- Matter of Coelho
- Matter of Katigbak
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