dismissedJUN052025_01B52032025-06-05 · combined
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/marketing venture focused on small and medium enterprises, including facilitating international trade with Latin America and creating jobs through business expansion.
Field: business and marketing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“While these articles demonstrate the importance of the field of business, they do not specifically reference the proposed endeavor or speak to its potential prospective impact.”
“the business plan does not explain the basis for the potential expansion of the business to create the 20 direct jobs”
“it does not demonstrate that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar”
“he does not identify these strategic priorities or other Federal initiatives”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan does not explain the basis for the potential expansion of the business to create the 20 direct jobs”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“they do not specifically reference the proposed endeavor or speak to its potential prospective impact”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“although the Petitioner has submitted additional evidence in support of the motion to reopen, the Petitioner has not established eligibility”
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
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
This is the fourth adjudication in the proceeding (appeal dismissed, then two prior motions to reconsider dismissed, now this combined motion to reopen/reconsider dismissed), illustrating repeated re-litigation of the same national importance arguments.
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)(2)
- 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