dismissedJUN062024_02B52032024-06-06 · 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 sought to develop and operate a U.S. company providing construction management and architectural consultancy services, projecting job creation and investment in economically distressed areas of New Jersey.
Field: architecture / construction management consultancy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“We explained that merely working in a particular field is insufficient to establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor.”
“We explained that the business plan by itself did not sufficiently detail the basis for its projections and specify how those projections would be realized.”
“We determined that the petitioner did not provide evidence to corroborate his statements or the claims outlined in his business plan.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“did not sufficiently detail the basis for its projections and specify how those projections would be realized”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“did not discuss how his endeavor to operate an architectural consultancy firm would have a national economic impact or facilitate job creation”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“has not provided new facts or documentary evidence showing that he meets the "national importance" requirement”
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 a combined motion to reopen/reconsider following a prior AAO appeal dismissal on prong-1 national importance grounds; the AAO found the Petitioner failed to identify new facts, evidence, or legal/policy errors, and largely incorporated its prior analysis rather than re-examining the merits in depth.
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