dismissedJUN242024_03B52032024-06-24 · appeal · 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 proposed to serve as CEO of a newly created lumber retail and wholesale company importing products from Brazil into Florida.
Field: lumber import/wholesale and retail trade · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner did not provide an explanation for the substantial discrepancies between the initial business plan and the financial business overview submitted in response to the RFE.”
“he has not established that his endeavor will have significant benefits to the U.S. economy as claimed on appeal”
“he has not offered sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the area where operates is economically depressed, that he would employ a significant population of workers in that area”
“he has not provided evidence to substantiate his claim that his proposed endeavor would have a measurable impact on U.S. trade relations”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“he has not adequately explained how either sales forecast was calculated or otherwise substantiated the forecasts”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“The Petitioner has relied upon two distinct and divergent financial forecasts to claim that his proposed endeavor will have a significant impact”
AAO decision text - resume experience · ignored
- motion resubmission · discounted
“The Petitioner resubmits the evidence provided to the Director and argues”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
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
AAO relied on unresolved material inconsistencies between two divergent financial forecasts (business plan vs. RFE-submitted financial overview) submitted by the Petitioner, invoking Matter of Ho and Matter of O-M-O- (fabricated evidence) doctrine on unexplained discrepancies as the basis for finding national importance unmet.
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. 103.3
- Matter of Ho
- 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