dismissedJUN102024_06B52032024-06-10 · motion_reconsider · 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, a lawyer, proposed an endeavor involving investment strategies aligned with U.S. strategic economic diversification efforts in Central Asia.
Field: law / investment strategy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“Here, the Petitioner conflates two of Dhanasar 's prong one requirements: substantial merit and national importance.”
“But simple alignment or shared common aspects with vague policy goals are not sufficient to meet the first prong's national importance portion.”
“he has not established his specific endeavor will substantially benefit and impact the industry more broadly, nor has he demonstrated he possesses a record of successful work in an area that furthers U.S. strategic interests.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- motion resubmission · discounted
“the motion brief essentially reasserted the Petitioner's previous allegations and described their disagreement with the conclusions in our appellate decision.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
2,501coded 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 Petitioner's second motion to reconsider following a prior appeal dismissal and a prior motion to reconsider dismissal; the AAO found the Petitioner merely reasserted prior arguments and disagreement rather than identifying legal or factual error, consistent with Matter of O-S-G-'s prohibition on using motions to relitigate the same brief.
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)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of O-S-G-
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