The Petitioner sought to run a business endeavor (previously operated in Brazil) in the United States, supported by a business plan with employee and sales projections.

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted
• motion resubmission · discounted

  “The Petitioner cannot meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider by broadly disagreeing with our conclusions”

  AAO decision text

Notable

This decision is a motion to reconsider a prior AAO appellate dismissal on national importance grounds; the AAO does not re-analyze the NIW prongs on their merits but instead dismisses the motion for failing to meet the procedural standard of 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3), finding the Petitioner merely disagreed with the prior decision without identifying legal or policy error. The underlying prior decision (not provided in full) found the endeavor lacked national importance, but that analysis is not reproduced here for coding.

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