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 occupational health and safety technician, proposed to operate a consultancy company providing occupational health and safety services to small- and medium-sized businesses.
Field: occupational health and safety consultancy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the projections depicted in the Petitioner's business plan were not supported by corroborating evidence and a sufficient explanation of how those projections would be realized”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“he did not establish that the benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the projections depicted in the Petitioner's business plan were not supported by corroborating evidence and a sufficient explanation of how those projections would be realized”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“material the Petitioner relied on to establish the national importance of his endeavor highlighted his academic and professional experience, which relates generally not to the first prong”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“The Petitioner's motion does not provide new facts supported by documentation that establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor.”
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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
Notable
This is a motion (reopen + reconsider) following a prior AAO appeal dismissal; the AAO incorporated its earlier prong-1 analysis and declined to reach prongs 2 and 3, citing Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for not addressing unnecessary issues. The Petitioner's motion was dismissed largely for failing to specify what arguments were overlooked or what legal error occurred.
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 L-A-C-
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