The Petitioner proposed to operate a business, supported by a five-year business plan projecting tax generation, revenue, payroll expenses, and job creation, with plans for state, regional, and national expansion.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner's business plan did not reflect that his company's future business activities and staffing levels stand to provide substantial economic benefits to specific regions or to the United States”

“the business plan did not establish the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the company's profits and revenues would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar”

“he did not demonstrate that such future staffing levels would provide substantial economic benefits to Florida or the region or U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance”

“the record lacked probative evidence sufficient to demonstrate that his proposed endeavor has broader implications rising to the level of having national importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “did not establish the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the company's profits and revenues would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · discounted

  “a petitioner cannot meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider by broadly disagreeing with our conclusions”

  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

Petitioner raised an irrelevant Fourth Amendment argument, which the AAO rejected as not germane to a motion to reconsider under Matter of O-S-G-. This is the second motion in the same case (prior decision ID# 27461772, AAO Jun. 13, 2023), which itself dismissed an appeal that had dismissed the underlying denial; AAO declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 on the original appeal and did not revisit them on this motion.

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 L-A-C-
• Matter of O-S-G-
• Poursina v. USCIS

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