The Petitioner proposed to serve as CEO of a consulting firm facilitating cross-continental investments between the U.S. and Europe by guiding companies and investors through international regulations, taxation, legal, compliance, and strategic advisory matters.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner does not cite any evidence to support this claim.”

“While these articles address significant issues in the Petitioner's field, they do not discuss her proposed endeavor.”

“The record does not establish that the Petitioner's company has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has substantial positive economic effects in an industry that the business plan states was valued at $43.6 billion in 2014.”

“S-M- does not articulate, however, how the Petitioner's company's services would extend beyond the individual businesses and entrepreneurs it works with to impact her field more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”

“The record does not establish, however, that any of the Petitioner's company's services are unique, innovative, or otherwise have national or global implications in her field.”

“the record does not establish that its services would extend beyond the businesses and individuals it serves to impact these areas on a level commensurate with national importance.”

“the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's company's workshops, seminars, and training programs would extend beyond the attendees and trainees to impact her field more broadly in a manner indicative of national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “The business plan provides no numeric predictions of how it would stimulate ancillary businesses.”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “does not articulate how the Petitioner's company's services would extend beyond the individual businesses and entrepreneurs it works with”

  AAO decision text
• media · discounted

  “these articles address significant issues in the Petitioner's field, they do not discuss her proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• degree · credited

Where this case turned

• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• 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

Notable

AAO emphasized that assessment of national importance focuses on the specific endeavor, not general field importance, repeatedly rejecting expert letter claims for failing to tie broad societal/economic benefits back to the specific company's activities.

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. 103.3
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
• The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
• The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
• The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
• The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution