The Petitioner, a project manager with a background in construction and public works, proposed to implement and disseminate an innovative methodology for preventing budget excess and optimizing resources in construction projects, while training other professionals in these practices.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the proposed endeavor did not stand to sufficiently extend beyond the Petitioner's prospective clients, associates and partners such that it would have a national impact”

“Because of the changing description of the methodology, we are limited in our ability to assess its potential prospective impact.”

“however, these arguments are not accompanied by evidence of the particularized economic impact that the endeavor would produce in these areas.”

“the Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that his methodology provides a new or unique approach that will lead to improved manufacturing processes.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “Because of the changing description of the methodology, we are limited in our ability to assess its potential prospective impact.”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · ignored
• resume experience · discounted

  “The Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and experience in the field, however, relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “these arguments are not accompanied by evidence of the particularized economic impact that the endeavor would produce in these areas”

  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
• Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

The Petitioner argued the Director applied a heightened evidentiary standard; AAO rejected this as unsupported and unspecific. The Petitioner's description of the endeavor and methodology shifted repeatedly across the filing, RFE response, and appeal (from PMBOK/Lean Six Sigma to DMAIC/PDCA/intelligent urban construction models), which the AAO cited as undermining its ability to assess prospective impact. AAO expressly reserved judgment on prongs two and three.

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 L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
• The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
• The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
• The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
• The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution