The Petitioner, a supply chain manager who founded his own subcontracting company for cell tower equipment maintenance and installation, proposed to continue supply chain management work and expand his company's tower construction and equipment supply business in the United States.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework.”

“he did not elaborate on these projections or provide evidence supporting the need for these additional employees.”

“he did not adequately explain how these earnings forecasts were calculated.”

“we are not persuaded by the claim that his proposed endeavor has national importance due to the shortage of professionals in his industry.”

“shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S . Department of Labor through the labor certification process.”

“we conclude the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and its clientele to impact the telecommunications industry, the supply management field, or the U.S . economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”

“he has not offered sufficient evidence that the area where his company will operate is economically depressed, that he would employ a significant population of workers in that area”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• resume experience · discounted

  “does not specify the dates of the Petitioner's employment”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “The aforementioned letters do not contain sufficient information and explanation... to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed work... offers broader implications”

  AAO decision text
• business plan · discounted

  “he did not elaborate on these projections or provide evidence supporting the need for these additional employees”

  AAO decision text
• degree · credited
• other · discounted

  “we are not persuaded by the claim that his proposed endeavor has national importance due to the shortage of professionals in his industry”

  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
• Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
• Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
• 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

AAO expressly declines to reach prongs 2 and 3 as unnecessary once prong 1 is found dispositive, and separately affirms the threshold advanced-degree/exceptional-ability denial as an independent alternate basis for dismissal; also treats petitioner's abandonment of the exceptional-ability issue on appeal as conceding that point.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
• Chen v. INS
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
• The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
• The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
• The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
• The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod