dismissedJUL302024_11B52032024-07-30 · 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, an entrepreneur and coaching specialist, proposed to use his leadership and specialized knowledge in training and development to grow his own company and serve clients.
Field: business development and training/coaching · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner had not determined that the proposed endeavor is of national importance”
“the evidence provided by the Petitioner did not suggest that the Petitioner's skills differ from or improve upon those already available in the United States”
“the use of the Petitioner's experience would reach beyond benefitting his own company and clients or have broader implications in the field”
“the Petitioner's business plan did not demonstrate that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan and resume again do not show that his potential endeavor will have broader implications at a level of national importance”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the business plan and resume again do not show that his potential endeavor will have broader implications at a level of national importance”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“The evidence submitted largely repeats what was already included in the record”
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
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
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
Motion to reconsider dismissed on procedural ground that Petitioner failed to identify any incorrect application of law or policy in the prior decision, rather than on substantive re-analysis.
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
- 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