The Petitioner proposed to open a U.S. subsidiary of his foreign company distributing cleaning chemical products (detergents, disinfectants, skin/hair care products) to industrial and residential sectors, initially employing himself and one other person and growing to nine employees by year five.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the business plan the Petitioner submitted at the time he filed the Form I-140 does not appear to correspond to the occupation described on the Form I-140”

“the reliability and sufficiency of the Petitioner's descriptions of the business plan specifically, and the record in general, is diminished”

“the record does not establish how the potential prospective impact of the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake...may have the type of broader implications that may indicate national importance”

“the proposed endeavor appears to have the potential to benefit the Petitioner, as the owner of the company with the planned U.S. subsidiary; the Petitioner's company; and the company's business partners, customers, and clients”

“the record does not establish how employing one chief executive officer, one operations manager...may be considered significant potential to employ U.S. workers”

“the generalized information does not address how the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have national or even global implications”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “cast doubt on whether the business plan corresponds to the position-and, thus, to the proposed endeavor-described on the Form I-140”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the letters providing information regarding the Petitioner's past work...do not address the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the industry reports and articles do not discuss the petitioner or his proposed endeavor”

  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
• Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
• 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

Notable

AAO relied heavily on internal inconsistencies between the Form I-140 (annual wage $150,000; SOC code for marketing managers) and the business plan (wages $30k-$100k; CEO role) to discredit the reliability of the endeavor description under Matter of Ho's 'doubt cast' doctrine, before proceeding to find national importance unestablished.

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 Ho
• 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