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 and entrepreneur, proposed to operate a small business/legal-entrepreneurial endeavor that he claimed would create 'financial bridges' and prompt broader economic development in the United States.
Field: law / small business entrepreneurship · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record 'still [did] not corroborate the claimed job and revenue projections for the proposed endeavor or otherwise establish the Petitioner's own proposed endeavor would have substantial positive economic effects'”
“the work extending beyond the Petitioner's company's individual clients to impact his field more broadly on a level commensurate with national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- other · discounted
“do not reference the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, demonstrate its prospective impact and national importance”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“did not corroborate the claimed job and revenue projections for the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“reargues facts and issues we have already considered in our previous decision”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
Notable
This is the second combined motion to reopen/reconsider following a denial, dismissed appeal, and a prior dismissed combined motion. The AAO clarified that its prior prong-one analysis was not limited to geographic scope but also considered broader field-level impact and potential to employ U.S. workers, rejecting the Petitioner's characterization of that analysis as overly narrow.
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)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- 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