The Petitioner sought to work in the U.S. advertising and marketing industry, initially planning to join a U.S. company and later proposing to start her own consulting business advising U.S. companies on entering the Brazilian and Latin American markets.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“she has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”

“the Petitioner's business plan did not contain any revenue forecasts, staffing models, or financial forecasts to establish the actual economic impact”

“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her proposed clientele to impact the advertising and marketing field or U.S. economy more broadly”

“neither the Petitioner nor her company were specifically mentioned in these articles”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “did not contain any revenue forecasts, staffing models, or financial forecasts to establish the actual economic impact”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · ignored
• media · discounted

  “neither the Petitioner nor her company were specifically mentioned in these articles”

  AAO decision text
• contract revenue · discounted
• resume experience · ignored

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
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

AAO noted it could not consider supplemental documentation submitted by the Petitioner in January 2024 outside the appeal window, citing 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(2)(i). The Petitioner argued the Director improperly focused on broader industry/regional implications rather than the specific endeavor, but AAO found this argument unpersuasive and applied the standard national-importance analysis.

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
• Flores v. Garland
• INA 203(b)(2)

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