The Petitioner sought to operate an information technology consulting company offering software development and tracking-technology solutions (e.g., OBD tracking, wearable and vehicle tracking devices), particularly for logistics and transportation businesses in the United States.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“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 shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and its clientele to impact the transportation industry”

“he has not offered sufficient evidence that his endeavor offers Florida or the United States a substantial economic benefit through employment levels, tax revenue, or business activity”

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

“he did not elaborate on these projections or provide evidence supporting the need for these additional employees”

“The issue here, however, is not the national importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “he did not elaborate on these projections or provide evidence supporting the need for these additional employees”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “does not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · ignored

  “his skills, knowledge, and prior work in his field, however, relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

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

  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
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

The AAO treated economic-impact and job-creation claims as unsupported speculation tied directly to an unexplained business plan, and rejected reliance on a professor's 'Expert Opinion Letter' because it addressed the importance of the IT field/industry generally rather than the specific endeavor, per Dhanasar's focus requirement.

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.

• Matter of L-A-C-
• Poursina v. USCIS

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