dismissedNOV052024_02B52032024-11-05 · motion_reconsider · 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, a civil engineer, proposed to establish and manage a sustainability-focused construction management business in Florida that would help real estate developers and construction companies plan and develop projects using sustainable techniques.
Field: civil engineering / sustainable construction management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
“the Petitioner did not explain or demonstrate how his proposed techniques of addressing the urban heat island phenomenon, would have national or global implications within the industry, beyond the impact on his future partner(s).”
“the record does not include corroborating evidence to support his employment projections or demonstrate that such job projections or the initial investment from a partnering company indicate a significant potential to employ U.S. workers or substantial positive impact.”
“the Petitioner's business plan, which, for example, projected a growth to 17 full-time employees during the first five years of the business... did not sufficiently demonstrate a significant potential to employ U.S. worker or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“did not sufficiently demonstrate a significant potential to employ U.S. worker or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“the record does not include corroborating evidence to support his employment projections”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“The Petitioner has not established that we erred as a matter of law or policy 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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- 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
The Petitioner checked the box for a motion to reconsider but titled his brief 'Motion to Reopen and Reconsider'; the AAO found he did not allege new facts supported by documentary evidence and therefore adjudicated the filing solely as a motion to reconsider, incorporating its prior appellate decision by reference.
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)(ii)
- 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
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