The Petitioner planned to operate his own consulting company providing financial, tax, and business advisory services to individuals and small/medium enterprises seeking to invest in or grow businesses in the U.S., with a focus on attracting Latin American investors.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”

“the Petitioner does not point to any corroborating evidence that would directly link his specific endeavor to the overall economy's growth”

“the letters do not explain how the Petitioner's financial and business consulting services have broader implications for our country”

“the job creation and revenue projections included in the Petitioner's business plan are not supported by details showing their basis”

“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence that the area where his company will operate is economically depressed”

“the Petitioner has not supported a claim that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his customers”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the plan does not demonstrate that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from his undertaking would reach the level of substantial positive economic effects”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the letters do not explain how the Petitioner's financial and business consulting services have broader implications for our country”

  AAO decision text
• media · discounted

  “merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• contract revenue · discounted

  “the business plan does not establish the benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level of substantial positive economic effects”

  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
• 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
• Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

AAO expressly declined to credit the Petitioner's citation of two non-precedent EB-1 extraordinary ability decisions, noting they involved a different classification and are non-binding; also distinguished second-prong-type letters (praising Petitioner's skills) from first-prong national importance evidence.

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. 103.5
• Matter of E-M-
• 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