The Petitioner sought to continue working as an entrepreneur and grow his multiple businesses, including an educational venture and a compact elevator installation company, along with new apartment construction projects.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“he did not establish that it is of national importance because the evidence did not show that the endeavor would have significant potential to employ U.S. workers, broadly impact the industries, or otherwise have broader economic or social implications”

“the record did not contain specific probative evidence independently substantiating these claims”

“the stated 2022 figures for his parent company, even if true, falls significantly below even [] initial business projections”

“these documents also generally describe significance a business field or industry and thus do not specifically relate to Dhanasar's national importance prong, which focuses on potential prospective impact of the proposed endeavor, rather than the person's credentials, experience, or the importance of the industry”

“the record still does not contain any objective evidence independently corroborating these assertions”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the record did not contain specific probative evidence independently substantiating these claims”

  AAO decision text
• contract revenue · discounted

  “the record still does not contain any objective evidence independently corroborating these assertions”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “they do not contain or support any new facts or assertions for purposes of a motion to reopen”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · discounted

  “we are not required to consider the similar documents he now submits on this motion”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “these documents also generally describe significance a business field or industry and thus do not specifically relate to Dhanasar's national importance prong”

  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

Notable

AAO declined to consider most motion evidence as untimely/duplicative under 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(11) and Matter of Soriano, but alternatively addressed it on the merits and still found national importance unestablished; motion to reconsider failed for generally alleging error without specifying legal/factual mistakes per Matter of O-S-G-.

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. 103.5
• Matter of Coelho
• Matter of O-S-G-

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