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, an entrepreneur in the physical fitness industry, sought to establish a business he claimed would boost local economies, support small businesses, and create opportunities for local communities.
Field: physical fitness industry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner stated that he will boost local economies, support small businesses, and create opportunities for local communities; however, his statements were not sufficiently supported by relevant, probative, and credible evidence.”
“the Petitioner's past experience is applicable to prong two analysis but is not proof of the national importance of his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner does not identify a new fact, nor does he submit documentary evidence of such a fact in support of the motion”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
The Petitioner raised a Fifth Amendment due process claim, asserting his documents 'were not properly analyzed by the Service,' but the AAO rejected this because the motion failed to explain how due process was violated or identify which documents were mishandled. The decision is purely procedural, dismissing both the motion to reopen (no new facts/evidence) and motion to reconsider (no identified legal/factual error), while referencing the prior appellate decision's prong-one finding to show the motion lacked merit.
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(a)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- Matter of Coelho
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