The Petitioner proposed to direct a startup incubator in Nevada, providing mentorship, funding strategies, and intellectual-property guidance to STEM/STKI startups, while also facilitating technology transfer from Chile and leading STEM career programs for minority students in U.S. schools.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not established his proposed endeavor of providing advice to startup entities sufficiently extends beyond his company and its prospective clientele to impact another industry or field more broadly”

“he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”

“the Petitioner has not explained how, or provided corroborating evidence showing, that his endeavor's future staffing levels, business activity, associated tax revenue, and inter-country STEM and STKI initiatives would in fact provide substantial positive economic benefits to the United States”

“the record does not show that his prior work with entities in Chile is transferrable to his U.S. proposed endeavor”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the 'the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake'”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the record does not show that his prior work with entities in Chile is transferrable to his U.S. proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “the record does not show that his prior work with entities in Chile is transferrable to his U.S. proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “financial and employment information about unrelated entities is not sufficient demonstrate that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's own undertaking would reach the level of 'substantial positive economic effects'”

  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

The Petitioner submitted copies of prior unpublished AAO decisions involving other entrepreneurs to support his national importance claim; the AAO noted in a footnote that unpublished decisions are not binding precedent under 8 C.F.R. 103.3(c).

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
• 8 C.F.R. 103.3(c)
• Chen v. INS
• Flores v. Garland
• INA 203(b)(2)
• 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