The Petitioner sought to work as a risk management advisor through her own Florida LLC, providing occupational health and safety consulting services primarily to small businesses and educational institutions, especially Hispanic-owned businesses in a local area.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we find the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her company and clientele to impact the occupational health and safety field or the U.S. economy more broadly”

“statements regarding the occupation or the field in general do not establish how the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor stands to impact the broader field or otherwise establish its national importance”

“the record does not support that the creation of four additional jobs in this sector or the expected tax revenue generated by the company will have a substantial economic benefit commensurate with the national importance element”

“the record does not sufficiently show that such benefits, either individually or cumulatively, would rise to the level of national importance”

“it does not specifically show the government's interest in the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or similar endeavors”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “does not demonstrate that the proposed endeavor's future staffing levels and consulting activity would provide substantial economic benefits”

  AAO decision text
• contract revenue · discounted

  “the record does not sufficiently show that such benefits, either individually or cumulatively, would rise to the level of national importance”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “statements regarding the occupation or the field in general do not establish how the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor stands to impact the broader field”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · ignored

  “the Petitioner's expertise acquired through her education, training and employment relates to the second prong”

  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
• Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

AAO expressly declines to reach prongs 2 and 3 despite Director having ruled against Petitioner on all three, citing Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the proposition that agencies need not decide unnecessary issues. Case involves a White House Executive Order on Worker Health and Safety cited as evidence of national importance, which AAO found insufficiently tied to the specific endeavor.

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
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Poursina v. USCIS

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