The petitioner initially proposed to work as a general operations manager advising U.S. companies, then shifted to founding his own import/export and supply chain consulting company (V-) targeting Brazil-U.S. trade.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework”

“the Petitioner has submitted insufficient and inconsistent evidence regarding the substantive nature of his proposed endeavor”

“the business plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for these financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized”

“he has not offered sufficient evidence that the area where the company operates is economically depressed”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the specific endeavor”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established

“we cannot conclude that he meets either the first or second prong, or that he has established eligibility for a national interest waiver”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the business plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for these financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and experience in his field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “articles and reports about the nature of the work performed by general operations managers which generally describe the occupation but provide no specific details about the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”

  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
• Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p2 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground

Notable

The AAO emphasized a material-change problem: the Petitioner's initial proposal to work as a general operations manager for U.S. employers was substantively replaced in the RFE response and on appeal with a new entrepreneurial plan (forming company V- for supply-chain/import-export consulting), which the AAO treated as an impermissible post-filing change under 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(1) and Matter of Izummi/Katigbak, precluding retroactive establishment of eligibility.

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 Izummi
• Matter of Katigbak
• 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