Petitioner, a travel agency owner with 18 years of industry experience, sought to operate a U.S.-based tourism business advising Brazilian travelers, providing consulting to small businesses/non-profits, and engaging in vacation-home rental/construction activities.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“she did not establish that the proposed endeavor is of national importance”

“the Petitioner relies primarily on the importance of the travel and tourism industry to the U.S. economy. However, this misapplies the Dhanasar framework.”

“her endeavor does not include any specific plans or demonstrate that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from her endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”

“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact to the field have little probative value.”

“The Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence... that her business's activities stand to provide substantial economic benefits to the region of Georgia or the United States”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “her endeavor does not include any specific plans or demonstrate that the benefits... would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact to the field have little probative value.”

  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

Petitioner argued a prior I-140 decision had acknowledged national importance evidence; AAO rejected this via Matter of Church Scientology Int'l, noting it is not bound by potentially erroneous prior determinations.

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 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