The Petitioner, an author, motivational speaker, and pastor, proposed to conduct mentoring, coaching, writing, and motivational teaching on leadership development by traveling for speaking engagements, partnering with organizations and educational institutions, and eventually setting up a training academy in the United States.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“they would not have a national or broader effect on the field of leadership development”

“The Director also noted that the record did not include evidence pertaining to the other potential national importance factors mentioned in Dhanasar, including substantial positive economic effects”

“he did not provide sufficient explanation or supporting evidence to establish its prospective potential impact”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“the Director also noted the lack of documentary evidence regarding these engagements and trainings”

“This evidence is not sufficient to support his claims or to show that his authorship constituted or contributed to a record of success in his field”

“this includes only slight expansions on the description of his proposed endeavor and an unsupported projection of the number of people he intends to reach”

“he relies upon the reference letters to show past interest in his work in Nigeria, but provides insufficient evidence regarding his proposed work in the U.S”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• degree · credited
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “provides insufficient evidence regarding his proposed work in the U.S.”

  AAO decision text
• business plan · discounted

  “includes only slight expansions on the description of his proposed endeavor and an unsupported projection of the number of people he intends to reach”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “is not sufficient to support his claims or to show that his authorship constituted or contributed to a record of success in his field”

  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
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
• Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
• Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
• Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish

Notable

AAO noted the Director erred by considering some second-prong evidence (past accomplishments) within the first-prong analysis, but found the error immaterial since national importance was not solely denied on that basis. The Petitioner did not challenge the third prong on appeal, so AAO deemed it waived.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
• INA 203(b)(2)

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Petitioner, an assistant professor of Arabic, proposed to continue teaching Levantine-Modern Standard Arabic to U.S.
• The Petitioner, a secondary school teacher, proposed to develop and implement an open educational resource program to ex
• The Petitioner proposed to establish a consulting company in Missouri to design and implement a nationally adaptable tea
• The Petitioner, an arts, drama, and music teacher and entrepreneur, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of excep
• The petitioner, a mathematics teacher with 17 years of experience, proposed to operate a company offering online math tu