dismissedJAN292025_05B52032025-01-29 · 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 operate a business providing swimming pool management, installation, and automation services, which he claimed was an entry point to a broader plan involving automation and technical services across various sectors.
Field: swimming pool management, installation, and automation services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the status of an entrepreneur providing swimming pool management, installation, and automation services falls far short of the national importance required for a national interest waiver”
“his motion brief doesn't expound on this concept any further, leaving us unable to adequately evaluate his claims in this area within the motion”
“his projections in the business plan relating to both the projected jobs and revenues were not supported with material corroborating the need for additional employees”
“these letters did not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor did the record include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that his specific proposed work would offer broader implications”
“the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and its clientele to impact his field or industry”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“his projections in the business plan relating to both the projected jobs and revenues were not supported with material corroborating the need for additional employees”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“these letters did not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor did the record include adequate corroborating evidence”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does not constitute "new facts."”
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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
1,312coded 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
Decision addresses a combined motion to reopen and reconsider following a prior appellate dismissal; AAO reiterates that reasserting prior facts/evidence does not satisfy motion-to-reopen standards, declines to consider a second business plan submitted in response to an RFE, and rejects the Petitioner's argument that AAO misapplied Dhanasar by requiring nationwide-scale benefits.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- Visinscaia v. Beers
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