dismissedNOV152024_01B52032024-11-15 · appeal · 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 Beneficiary proposed to serve as president of a trucking/moving company that would provide moving services to victims of domestic violence, with staff trained in trauma awareness, and also mentioned an intent to establish a small free dental clinic.

Field: trucking/moving services; dentistry/orthodontics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner did not consistently describe the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor throughout the record”

“the Petitioner had not shown that the proposed endeavor would result in broader implications to the field beyond the direct benefits to its prospective customers”

“the industry or customer base a petitioner or beneficiary will serve alone is not sufficient to establish national importance”

“The Petitioner has not shown the broader implications of the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor, however admirable, rise to the level of national importance contemplated in Dhanasar”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

degree · discounted
“the Director questioned the authenticity of the evidence”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner reiterates the same statements made in their motion to reopen”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

777coded 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 appeal concerns dismissal of a motion to reopen, not the underlying denial itself; the AAO emphasizes the Petitioner failed to identify any erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the motion dismissal decision, which alone was a basis for dismissal, before proceeding to address the merits de novo. The proposed endeavor shifted between trucking company president, domestic-violence moving services, and a free dental clinic.

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. 103.3
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
INA 203(b)(2)
Matter of Coelho

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer