The Petitioner, an industrial machinery mechanic, proposed to start a business creating fuel pellets from wood processing waste and granulating edible waste.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The evidence provided does not demonstrate that this specific endeavor is of national importance.”

“the Petitioner has not described how his pellet manufacturing will have a broader impact on the field beyond the individual clients he intends to sell to”

“the business plan does not adequately support its projections of job and revenue creation”

“The record does not illustrate how creating 14 jobs and generating the net profit as projected in the business plan, would have substantial positive economic effects on the level of national importance”

“we find that the record does not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will sufficiently extend beyond his clients to affect the region or nation more broadly”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the lack of supporting details detracts from the credibility and probative value of the business plan”

  AAO decision text
• media · discounted

  “These articles and reports are of little evidentiary value as they do not address the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “The Petitioner does not explain how this evidence is relevant to national importance as it points to the Petitioner's past accomplishments”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “Generally, this type of evidence is more appropriate for the second prong when determining if the petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• other · ignored

  “A petitioner must meet all the eligibility requirements of the petition at the time of filing.”

  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
• 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

AAO noted that supplemental evidence submitted after filing (an article and investor interest communications, undated letters from potential business associates) could not be considered because eligibility must be established as of the filing date.

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. 103.2(b)(1)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.3
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
• 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