dismissedMAY132025_02B52032025-05-13 · combined
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 a business venture, supported by a business plan, though the specific industry or nature of the endeavor is not described in this motion decision.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner had not demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the analytical framework”
“our conclusion his business plan was not supported with corroborating evidence showing the need for additional employees or with specific information indicating how his future revenue projections would be achieved”
“the letters from A-A-, D-P, and M-A-A- did not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor did the record include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed work offers broader implications in his field or substantial positive economic effects”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“unsupported assertions and speculation have no evidentiary value and are insufficient to establish a filing party has satisfied their burden of proof”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“did not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor did the record include adequate corroborating evidence”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“merely reargue facts and issues we have already considered in our previous decisions”
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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
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 appeal dismissal and a prior motion dismissal; the AAO emphasizes the second business plan submitted in response to an RFE materialized after filing and cannot establish eligibility at time of filing, citing Katigbak and Izummi against material changes to conform a deficient petition.
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
- Matter of Coelho
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of O-S-G-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, an aircraft mechanic and instructor, proposed to enhance aviation maintenance training programs, support
- The Petitioner seeks EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree with a national inter
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver of the job offer requirement, but the substance of the proposed e
- The Beneficiary, sponsored by a private airline, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability in a
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; the sp