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 establish and direct the operations of a Florida-based company offering business process reengineering, improvement, problem-solving, and management services.
Field: business process engineering/consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we determined the Petitioner had not demonstrated that his specific business would attain sufficient size or scope to achieve these results on a national scale.”
“the record did not indicate the business would employ enough people to significantly affect the economically depressed areas.”
“the record did not demonstrate the business would introduce advancements to the consulting or business process engineering field”
“the Petitioner has not provided corroboration to demonstrate the national impact of the endeavor either through national implications within the field or that it would have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or have a substantial positive economic effect.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“had not demonstrated that his specific business would attain sufficient size or scope to achieve these results on a national scale”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“reasserts these contentions articulated on appeal, but does not identify any misapplication of law or policy”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
The AAO refused to consider a materially changed proposed endeavor (a new job offer as regional director of a nonprofit association) raised on motion, citing Matter of Izummi's bar on material changes to a filed petition, and instead evaluated only the original, previously-rejected endeavor.
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
- Matter of Izummi
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner attempted a material change of endeavor on motion (barred under Izummi) and, as to original endeavor, failed to show it would reach national scale in impact, jobs, or field advancement.
Do not switch endeavors mid-proceeding; instead quantify and corroborate the original endeavor's scale-jobs, revenue, or field impact-with independent evidence, not projections.
vague
economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · field_advancement · geographic_or_shortage_area
person_focused
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