The Petitioner, an IT systems specialist, sought to work as a Computer Systems Engineer providing IT infrastructure consulting services to U.S. businesses through her own Florida-based company.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of her specific, proposed endeavor of providing her particular IT services, including through her company, rather than the importance of IT, critical infrastructure workers, system engineers, and other related topics.”

“the letters do not show the broader impact of the Petitioner's work rather than limited to her clients, who employ her for her services.”

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

“the record does not establish that, beyond the limited benefits provided to its prospective clients and employees, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has broader implications rising to the level of having national importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the Petitioner did not demonstrate how her business' claimed revenue and employment projections, even if credible or plausible, have significant potential to employ U.S. workers”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

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

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of her specific, proposed endeavor... rather than the importance of IT, critical infrastructure workers, system engineers, and other related topics”

  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
• Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts

Notable

AAO explicitly distinguished the Petitioner's 'substantial merit' evidence (found sufficient) from her 'national importance' evidence (found insufficient), and noted her expertise/experience arguments were misdirected to prong 2 rather than prong 1. The decision cites Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- to justify declining to reach prongs 2 and 3, framing dismissal as resting on independent, alternate bases.

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

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