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 intended to operate her own logistics and transportation consulting company in Massachusetts, offering foreign trade logistics and transport consultancy services.
Field: logistics and transportation consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“We determined the Petitioner had not sufficiently demonstrated that her company's activities stand to provide substantial economic benefits for Massachusetts or the United States.”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor's impact stands to sufficiently extend beyond her employees and clients to impact her field, the U.S. economy, or societal welfare at a level commensurate with national importance.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner has not established new facts relevant to our appellate decision that would warrant reopening of the proceedings.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the Petitioner has not submitted any evidence or arguments that could be construed as "new facts"”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner has not submitted any evidence or arguments that could be construed as "new facts" that were previously unavailable or undiscoverable”
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
The decision is a combined motion to reopen/reconsider following a prior appellate dismissal; the AAO declines to re-adjudicate and finds no new facts or legal errors were identified, reaffirming the original prong one national importance failure without reaching prongs two or three.
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)(i)
- 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)
- Matter of Coelho
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Her combined motions repackaged the same evidence and disagreement: no new previously-unavailable facts for reopening, and no identified misapplication of law for reconsideration, so both were dismissed.
Motions are not a second appeal: reopening requires facts you could not have presented before, and reconsideration requires naming the specific legal error, not restating the endeavor's significance.
moderate
economic_growth_generic · us_competitiveness
mixed
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution