dismissedMAR142025_01B52032025-03-14 · 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 intended to open and grow his own logistics management company in the United States.
Field: logistics management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“he did not provide sufficient evidence of the national importance of his particular endeavor”
“the submitted evidence did not sufficiently explain the basis for financial projections or growth in employees such that the proposed endeavor would have substantial economic benefits”
“the record did not show that the Petitioner' s endeavor would have a broader impact on the logistics management industry”
“his proposed endeavor aligns with Dhanasar because it addresses significant economic needs in a localized area”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the submitted evidence did not sufficiently explain the basis for financial projections or growth in employees”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner did not submit new evidence regarding the national importance of his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“his contentions in the current motion merely reargue facts and issues we considered in our prior decision”
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
1,358coded 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
Procedurally unusual case: AAO first rejected the appeal as untimely, then found that rejection erroneous, reopened on its own Service motion under 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(5), and dismissed the appeal on the merits before this combined motion to reopen/reconsider was filed and also dismissed.
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)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 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