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 operate his own logistics management company in the United States.
Field: logistics management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; not disputed on motion.
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”
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
“does not state any new facts supported by documentary evidence that was not previously considered”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the Petitioner cites evidence that was previously considered in our prior decisions such as his business plan and articles on logistics services”
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
Notable
Unusual procedural history: AAO initially rejected the appeal as untimely in error, reopened the matter sua sponte via a Service motion under 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(5), then dismissed the appeal on the merits; this is the second combined motion to reopen/reconsider following that dismissal, and both were denied for failing to meet the regulatory motion standards rather than on renewed substantive analysis.
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 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