The Petitioner, an attorney with a U.S. master's degree, proposed to operate a consulting business in Florida advising immigrants on redirecting remittances toward U.S. investments and improving their financial literacy, eventually hiring up to 12 employees by year five.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“he did not demonstrate how any assistance he would provide to his potential clients would rise to the level of national importance contemplated in Dhanasar”

“this evidence relies on the cumulative economic benefits of mitigating remittances, rather than "substantial positive economic effects" directly resulting from his specific endeavor”

“he has not provided information relating to the nature of the employment, including the prospective duties of these positions, whether these employees will be full-time or part-time, or the salaries of these positions”

“activities which may only benefit the Petitioner's clients would not have broader implications in the field”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• degree · credited
• business plan · discounted

  “he has not provided information relating to the nature of the employment...or explained how it will impact the area of intended operations”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the Petitioner does not explain how these articles establish the national importance of his specific endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “a petitioner's expertise and record of success are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”

  AAO decision text

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

Notable

AAO withdrew the Director's threshold denial (advanced degree professional finding reversed in Petitioner's favor) but still dismissed the appeal on Dhanasar prong 1, declining to reach prongs 2 and 3; Petitioner's reliance on Buletini v. INS to argue for holistic evidence review was rejected as not requiring individualized analysis of each evidentiary item.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
• Buletini v. INS
• Flores v. Garland
• INA 203(b)(2)
• Matter of L-A-C-

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