The Petitioner, an IT engineer specializing in cybersecurity, intended to operate her own consultancy business providing cybersecurity development, consulting, and training services to private and public sector clients in the United States.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of her endeavor”

“neither this documentation, the Petitioner's business plan, nor the letters of support sufficiently demonstrate how the Petitioner's plan to operate a cybersecurity consultancy company will have a potential prospective impact of national importance”

“the plan does not, however, provide the origins of these calculations, nor are the numbers corroborated by probative evidence”

“the business plan does not demonstrate that the prospective benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor"”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the business plan does not demonstrate that the prospective benefits to the regional or national economy... would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “we note that evidence of the Petitioner's job experience and performance generally relates not to the national importance of an endeavor... but to the second”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “this material provides information about the Petitioner's intended field of endeavor... [but does not] sufficiently demonstrate how the Petitioner's plan... will have a potential prospective impact”

  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

Notable

AAO overruled the Director's procedural exclusion of post-filing business plan and letters under Matter of Katigbak, finding the initial evidence was ambiguous as to the proposed endeavor and thus the later-submitted documents could be considered as elucidations rather than new facts; nonetheless the appeal was dismissed on the merits under prong 1.

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 Katigbak
• Matter of L-A-C-

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