The Petitioner planned to operate her own U.S. consulting company providing accounting, tax, contract-management, and financial consulting services to individuals, entrepreneurs, and SMEs, while also volunteering with the IRS VITA tax-assistance program.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner puts forth arguments on appeal that rely mainly on assertion and are not corroborated by the evidence in the record.”

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor would have broader implications in the field of personal finance and entrepreneurship accountancy on the U.S. economy beyond the companies benefiting from the Petitioner's services.”

“The Petitioner does not explain in detail how her company's projected tax payments will have more than incidental impacts on the field or on the economy.”

“the Petitioner's assertions that her efforts to "contribute to the enrichment of the professionals' pool" will have more than an incremental impact on the suggested workforce shortage is unsupported.”

“Professor[]'s advisory opinion is of little probative value as it does not meaningfully address the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in detail as it concerns national importance.”

“the Petitioner does not provide a detailed explanation of how these projections, even if realized, will have broader implications within the field or have substantial positive economic effects.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “The Petitioner puts forth arguments on appeal that rely mainly on assertion and are not corroborated by the evidence in the record.”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “is of little probative value as it does not meaningfully address the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in detail as it concerns national importance.”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · credited

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
• Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
• Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
• 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

The AAO noted an unresolved inconsistency: the Petitioner had applied for an 'Accounting Assistant' position, which conflicted with her claimed entrepreneurial endeavor, citing Matter of Ho. It also rejected unsupported Opportunity Zone/HUBZone economic-impact arguments and found the Petitioner's IRS VITA volunteering insufficient to establish national importance.

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.

• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of Ho
• Matter of L-A-C-
• USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)

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