dismissedJUL292024_03B52032024-07-29 · 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 proposed to become a managing general agent and business administrator in the global reinsurance market, launching a company to digitalize and connect reinsurance platform participants.
Field: reinsurance / managing general agent · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we explained that the Petitioner had not submitted sufficient evidence to establish the national importance of the specific proposed endeavor, instead repeatedly emphasizing the importance of the reinsurance industry in general”
“the information on the managing general agent role and press release on the insurance industry address the national importance of the reinsurance market generally but not the specific proposed endeavor”
“although the revenue forecasts are projected to be $2.5M and create 10 positions in year 5, the Petitioner did not show how these future projections impact the economy”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“this information is not significantly different from statements regarding the proposed efficiencies made in the business plan previously submitted”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the Petitioner did not show how these future projections impact the economy”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“The Petitioner has not provided new facts or documentary evidence showing that he meets the "national importance" requirement”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“address the national importance of the reinsurance market generally but not the specific proposed endeavor”
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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
2,501coded 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 on combined motions to reopen/reconsider following prior AAO dismissal; Petitioner's reassertion of exceptional ability (a prong-2 argument) rejected as misplaced since case turned on prong-1 national importance.
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
- Matter of O-S-G-
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