The Petitioner planned to own and operate a technology transfer consulting company in Florida, acting as an intermediary between universities/research centers and industry to help commercialize research and development.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the articles and reports here help demonstrate the importance of technology transfer activities in general, they do not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor...has national importance”

“Even if these employment and revenue projections were adequately supported by details showing their basis...the business plan would not demonstrate the proposed endeavor's significant potential”

“it is not apparent how his endeavor would resolve this shortage or impact it on a national level”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”

“he does not sufficiently articulate how his work will specifically impact his field on a national level”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the business plan would not demonstrate the proposed endeavor's significant potential to either employ U.S. workers or to substantially impact the regional or national economy”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the author does not offer any meaningful analysis of the Petitioner's business plan, the specific proposed endeavor and its prospective substantial economic impact”

  AAO decision text
• media · discounted

  “they do not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor...has national importance”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “the Petitioner's expertise acquired through his academic and professional career primarily relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”

  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
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

AAO expressly agreed with Petitioner that the Director placed undue focus on 'substantial positive economic effects' and considered broader field-impact arguments, but still found the endeavor's field-level impact insufficiently articulated; declined to reach prong 3 as 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
• Matter of Caron Int'l
• Matter of D-R-
• 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