The petitioner proposed to work as a Business Development Director investing in and growing U.S. businesses, including his own ventures in Florida real estate, Brazilian mineral water import, and related business development activities.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his specific, proposed endeavor of providing his services as a Business Development Director”

“the letters discuss his particular services to each respective client, but do not show the broader impact of his work rather than limited to his specific clients”

“the Petitioner did not sufficiently explain or demonstrate how his particular proposed endeavor would have any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation”

“The record does not show through supporting documentation how his endeavor sufficiently extends beyond his prospective clients, to impact the field or the U.S. economy more broadly”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the letters discuss his particular services to each respective client, but do not show the broader impact of his work”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the letter does not explain how the Petitioner's involvement in these industries has broader implications for our country”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the matter here is not whether these topics or similarly related subjects, are nationally important”

  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
• 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

AAO explicitly distinguishes between substantial merit (conceded by Director) and national importance (not met), and treats petitioner's personal accomplishment/experience evidence as misdirected toward prong 2 rather than prong 1. Case also involves multiple business ventures across real estate, mineral water import, and consulting, none individually shown to have national-level impact.

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
• 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