The Petitioner proposed to work as a business management consultant and chief operating officer of his own enterprise, helping U.S. manufacturers and startups expand 'Made in the USA' telecommunications products into international markets in the Middle East, North Africa, and Asia.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record lacks evidence demonstrating the projections rise to the level of national importance.”

“the Petitioner has not submitted evidence to support the conclusion that his endeavor will impact the fields of sales, marketing, customer relations, telecommunications, information technology, imaging, and electronics at a level commensurate with national importance.”

“a shortage of sales professionals would not be sufficient to establish national importance.”

“the Petitioner's assertions relate to the importance of the field, and not to his proposed endeavor.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “even assuming all the projections in the business plan are accurate and attained ... the record lacks evidence demonstrating the projections rise to the level of national importance.”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “We acknowledge the Petitioner's assertions; however, they lack probative evidence to support them.”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “the first prong generally does not consider the Petitioner's professional qualifications, work experience, business partnerships, or letters of support from investors”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• 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
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

AAO accepted a late-filed appeal (78 days late) as timely because the Director's decision lacked complete address information, so the Petitioner's assertion of non-receipt was credited. AAO also corrected the Director's misstatement of the endeavor's field (video/audio production vs. sales/telecom) but found it immaterial to the outcome.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of L-A-C-
• USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
• The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
• The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
• The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
• The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution