The Petitioner, a civil engineer, proposed to create a company offering diagnosis, construction, commissioning, and consulting services for logistic storage centers in Florida, aiming to become the leading such network in the state by 2028.

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“The business plan does not offer detailed financial projections but concludes that "the investment of this expanding business model is profitable."”

“this evidence does not show that the Petitioner's business plan for future activities, and progress towards achieving his company's goals rise to the level of rendering him well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.”

“Nor does the record reflect sufficient interest from potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals to demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his proposed company.”

“the record does not show that this past experience renders him well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor aimed at offering consulting services to logistics storage centers”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “does not offer detailed financial projections but concludes that "the investment of this expanding business model is profitable."”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the record does not show that this past experience renders him well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• contract revenue · discounted

  “this evidence does not show that the Petitioner's business plan for future activities...rise to the level of rendering him well positioned”

  AAO decision text
• degree · ignored

Where this case turned

• Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
• Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
• No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
• Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish

Notable

Petitioner argued Director applied an EB-1 'original contributions of major significance' standard and that failure to individually address every piece of evidence was an abuse of discretion; AAO rejected both arguments, citing multiple circuit court cases on reasoned agency decision-making. AAO expressly declined to reach prongs 1 and 3, finding prong 2 dispositive.

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
• Buletini v. INS
• 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