The Petitioner planned to operate his own supply chain management consulting company, offering outsourcing, procurement negotiation training, and alternative-supplier search services to U.S. companies.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has provided little explanation or corroboration for the bases of these projections and has not sufficiently elaborated on how the projected revenue and proposed employment numbers will impact the area of intended operations”

“even if these projections were more than conjecture, we would still conclude that the Petitioner had not established that the endeavor would operate on a scale rising to the level of national importance”

“the pertinent question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”

“Simply working in an important field is insufficient to establish the proposed endeavor's national importance”

“The record contains insufficient evidence that the proposed endeavor stands to impact or significantly reduce the claimed national shortage”

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

“they provide little explanation to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”

“the letter does not specifically detail how the Petitioner's endeavor would accomplish these goals or how any impact would extend beyond the direct clients that the Petitioner will serve”

“the Petitioner does not specifically detail how he will accomplish these sizeable objectives through his endeavor”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the Petitioner has provided little explanation or corroboration for the bases of these projections”

  AAO decision text
• media · discounted

  “The articles and reports, however, provide only general background information on these subjects and do not specifically relate to or discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “they provide little explanation to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · ignored

Where this case turned

• 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
• Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
• 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 raised, sua sponte, a novel HUBZone eligibility question, noting the Petitioner's business would likely not qualify for the HUBZone federal contracting set-aside program because it would be wholly owned by a non-U.S.-citizen, undercutting one of the Petitioner's implicit economic-benefit arguments.

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

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