The Petitioner, an entrepreneur with 25 years of business experience, proposed to advise U.S. agribusiness companies on planning, starting, and operating businesses; he later claimed to have instead founded a health and fitness company, but the AAO would only consider the originally proposed endeavor.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner did not offer specific information and evidence to corroborate his assertions that the prospective impact of continuing his work as an entrepreneur and advising agribusiness companies rises to the level of national importance.”

“the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his specific, proposed endeavor rather than the importance of small businesses and immigrants to the U.S. economy”

“Without evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work, the record does not show any benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy”

“Accordingly, we will not consider the Petitioner's materially changed proposed endeavor of creating”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “The Petitioner's experience and abilities in his field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his specific, proposed endeavor rather than the importance of small businesses and immigrants to the U.S. economy”

  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

Notable

The AAO declined to consider the Petitioner's claim to have founded a new company (a health and fitness business) after filing, invoking Matter of Izummi and Matter of Bardouille to bar consideration of facts arising after filing; it evaluated only the originally proposed agribusiness-consulting endeavor and found it lacked national importance, resolving the appeal solely on prong 1 as an independent, alternate basis.

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. 103.2(b)(1)
• Matter of Bardouille
• Matter of Izummi
• 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