dismissedSEP082022_01B52032022-09-08 · 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 Petitioner, a marketing/business development professional, initially proposed to work as a marketing manager and cross-border business consultant for U.S. companies, then shifted on appeal to operating and expanding his own U.S. company selling market-research services and COVID-19 screening kiosks.
Field: marketing and business development · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we conclude that the Petitioner impermissibly changed the substantive nature of his proposed endeavor after the filing of the petition.”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his business and its clientele”
“he has not provided corroborative evidence, such as tax returns and payrolls records to substantiate the current number of individuals”
“the business plan estimates that the sale and rental of the Covid-19 related kiosks will account for over $1,077,000”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the evidence of record does not sufficiently illuminate the nature of S-'s historical business operations”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“he has not provided corroborative evidence, such as tax returns and payrolls records to substantiate”
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
- Material change of endeavor · p1 — the endeavor described on appeal is not the one filed
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 AAO found that the Petitioner impermissibly changed the substantive nature of his proposed endeavor after filing—shifting from marketing consulting for U.S. companies to operating his own COVID-19 kiosk business—treating this material change itself as an independent, alternate basis for dismissal alongside the national importance failure.
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)(1)
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
- 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