dismissedAUG162024_06B52032024-08-16 · 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, a social worker, proposed to serve as program director of her own non-profit organization, expanding workshops aimed at socially engaging young people and addressing juvenile justice and youth mental health needs.
Field: social work · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not shown that her proposed endeavor" "stands to sufficiently extend beyond her own company and the youth and families it seeks to help to impact the fields of pedagogy and social work or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”
“they did not discuss the Petitioner's proposed future endeavor in sufficient detail”
“the authors primarily focused on the importance of the social work.”
“this evidence did not concern her specific endeavor of organizing workshops in an attempt to socially engaged young people.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“The record establishes that the business plan was fully reviewed and evaluated based on the Matter of Dhanasar”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they did not discuss the Petitioner's proposed future endeavor in sufficient detail”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“this evidence did not concern her specific endeavor of organizing workshops in an attempt to socially engaged young people.”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“The Petitioner's contentions in their current motion merely reargue facts and issues we have already considered in our previous decisions.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- 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 a second successive motion to reconsider; the AAO's dismissal turns entirely on the procedural standard for motions to reconsider (failure to identify incorrect application of law or policy) rather than a fresh substantive Dhanasar analysis, citing Matter of O-S-G- for the principle that a motion to reconsider cannot simply reargue the same brief.
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)(i)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- 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