The Petitioner planned to establish and manage his own residential remodeling and construction company in Florida, offering low-cost remodeling services and hiring up to 122 employees over five years.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the proposed endeavor would serve the business management functions of one U.S. company-the Petitioner's own company-not that of multiple "U.S. companies" as asserted on appeal”

“the record does not establish the significance of employing 122 workers in the suburban districts of the metropolitan area ... in order to determine whether such employment would amount to broader implications”

“The record does not establish how paying 122 workers ... an average annual wage of $26,881.59 per worker would have "substantial positive economic effects."”

“such a shortage does not, by itself, establish that [the Petitioner's] work stands to impact the broader field or otherwise have implications rising to the level of national importance”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the record does not establish the significance of employing 122 workers in the suburban districts of the metropolitan area”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “the Petitioner's focus on appeal on his education and prior work experience with regard to the first Dhanasar prong is misplaced”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the Petitioner's focus on appeal on generalized industry reports and articles in the record is misplaced”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
• 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

The AAO performed its own arithmetic to rebut the Petitioner's wage claims, calculating that the promised $16,397,773 in wages over five years for 122 workers averages to only $26,881.59 per worker annually, undermining the claimed economic benefit. The AAO expressly reserved judgment on threshold EB-2 eligibility and on Dhanasar prongs two and three, resting the dismissal solely on prong one.

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-

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