A software developer sought to be self-employed through his own newly formed Florida company, developing ERP and other business software solutions for U.S. companies and mentoring other IT professionals.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The submitted materials provide general information about the Petitioner's industry and field of work, but did not relate specifically to his proposed endeavor.”

“The Petitioner's work to date in the United States has been with small, local businesses.”

“The plan does not specify which figures in the table relate to the Petitioner's company”

“the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor would address the asserted shortage at a level of national importance”

“Speculation about the company's potential future growth does not establish national impmiance at the time of filing”

“General background information about the overall importance of an occupation or specialty does not establish the national importance ofthe work of any one worker”

“The nature of the proposed endeavor has changed significantly over the course of this proceeding”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “The plan does not specify which figures in the table relate to the Petitioner's company”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “primarily described the industry ... without establishing how the Petitioner's work, in particular, would have national importance”

  AAO decision text
• contract revenue · discounted

  “they do not show wider benefit at a level of national importance”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “he did not provide details or evidence regarding any employment during the 1990s”

  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
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
• Material change of endeavor · p1 — the endeavor described on appeal is not the one filed
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

AAO emphasized that the proposed endeavor materially changed after filing (e.g., water conservation/smartphone app work arising from a contract secured two years post-filing), invoking Izummi/Katigbak's filing-date eligibility rule. AAO also specifically debunked the business plan's indirect-job multiplier math (142 claimed vs. ~42 supportable). Because prong 1 (national importance) was dispositive, the AAO expressly reserved the Director's independent denial on prong 3, citing Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C-.

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)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.3
• Matter of Izummi
• Matter of Katigbak
• 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