The Petitioner sought to operate an all-in-one technology agency offering IT services—web, mobile, and cloud solutions, including AI development—to U.S.-based startups and small businesses.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“Here, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how his specific proposed endeavor will have national or global implications in the field.”

“As SCOPS explained in the denial, merely working in an important field or in an area a government entity has described as a priority is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”

“However, the Petitioner does not present any suppmiing evidence, corroborating the projections and figures presented in the business plan to demonstrate how his claimed revenue and employment projections”

“The Petitioner did not identify in the record below or now on appeal what standards his company is setting or how these standards or processes improve upon those already available”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the Petitioner does not present any suppmiing evidence, corroborating the projections and figures presented in the business plan”

  AAO decision text
• contract revenue · discounted

  “the Petitioner does not show how his future staffing levels would utilize a significant population of workers”

  AAO decision text
• degree · credited

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

AAO agreed with SCOPS that Petitioner met threshold EB-2 classification and prong 2, but affirmed denial solely on national importance (prong 1), expressly reserving prongs 2 and 3 as dispositive-issue resolution rendered further analysis unnecessary.

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
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5
• Flores v. Garland
• 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