dismissedOCT172024_04B52032024-10-17 · 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 proposed to partner with American universities to market and promote their courses through e-learning on his online platform, distinguishing his company from traditional online program managers.
Field: online education / e-learning platform · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record did not establish his proposed endeavor of partnering with American universities to market and promote their courses through e-leaming on his online platform would result in broader implications to the field at a level commensurate with national importance”
“the Petitioner had not shown his specific endeavor had a significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise result in substantial positive economic effects discussed in Dhanasar”
“the limited information presented in the Petitioner's business plan relating to the prospective employment of U.S. workers and the company's economic impact”
“the services outlined on motion do not overcome our conclusion that the Petitioner has not shown that his company will impact the field more broadly, rather than only benefiting his direct customers and clients”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner did not explain how these projections, even if realized, would result in substantially positive economic effects contemplated in Dhanasar”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“a person cannot satisfy the requirements of a motion to reconsider by generally alleging error in the prior decision”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the letter of intent does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these financial and employment projections, beyond a passing reference to a conversion rate”
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
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
1,312coded 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
This is a motion to reconsider following a prior AAO appellate dismissal; the Petitioner attempted to introduce post-filing evidence (Florida company registration) which the AAO refused to consider under the rule that eligibility must be established at time of filing (8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(12); Matter of Izummi; Ogundipe v. Mukasey).
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. 103.2(b)(12)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5
- Matter of Bardouille
- Matter of Izummi
- 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