The Petitioner proposed to work as an independent consultant developing and implementing customized international business plans and trade strategies for U.S. small and medium-sized enterprises to improve their profitability, competitiveness, and market expansion.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“Merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”

“The Petitioner does not quantify the proposed endeavor's expected impact in the identified areas of concern, or provide objective, probative evidence to support his contentions.”

“The Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor extends beyond his work as an independent contractor and his future clients to impact the field or any other industries or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “much of the evidence submitted in support of Dhanasar's first prong addresses the industry or profession in which the Petitioner intends to work without discussing his specific proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “their overall significance does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in particular”

  AAO decision text

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
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

The AAO rejected the Petitioner's argument that the Director's use of EB-1-style 'original innovations' language imposed an improper heightened standard, and it declined to reach prongs two and three because the prong-one failure was dispositive.

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
• Buletini v. INS
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of E-M-
• 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