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 operate a business specializing in nationwide long-distance freight hauling and transportation services for various goods in Florida.
Field: long-distance freight hauling and transportation services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner had not shown that the proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for the United States”
“she has not, for example, shown that the area in which her company operates is economically depressed”
“the Petitioner had not shown how it would impact or benefit the transportation and logistics industry overall”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“had not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
- motion resubmission · discounted
“these arguments were fully addressed in our prior decision”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
This is a motion to reconsider that dismisses the motion primarily on procedural grounds: the Petitioner resubmitted her prior appeal brief without identifying any specific legal or policy error in the AAO's earlier decision, which the AAO characterized as impermissible under Matter of O-S-G- (broadly disagreeing with conclusions rather than showing legal/policy error). The AAO incorporated its prior decision by reference rather than conducting fresh substantive analysis; prongs 2 and 3 remained unreached as in the original appeal.
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)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- Matter of Coelho
- 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