dismissedOCT162025_05B52032025-10-16 · combined

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 proposed to operate a grocery store in the United States that provides prepared meals.

Field: grocery store / prepared meals retail · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established

“the record does not establish that her proposed endeavor of operating a grocery store that provides prepared meals has national importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

motion resubmission · discounted
“the receipts establish that an unspecified purchaser paid FedEx to deliver shipments on the dates noted above”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

1,581coded 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 is the fourth AAO decision in the same proceedings (appeal, motion to reopen, untimely combined motion, and now a third combined motion), all ultimately turning on procedural grounds—untimeliness and failure to satisfy Lozada requirements for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim—rather than fresh substantive review of the national importance prong, which was incorporated by reference from a prior decision. The Petitioner submitted only FedEx shipment receipts as new evidence, which the AAO found did not establish who sent the shipments or excuse the delay.

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 Coelho

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer