The Petitioner, a specialist in private equity and foreign investment, proposed to raise equity funding for oil and gas exploration and real estate investment projects through companies he co-founded.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“these broad fields lack the specificity required of a proposed endeavor under Dhanasar”

“the evidence did not establish that the benefits and impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would extend beyond the contractors and clients served”

“the record lacks context to show that the scope of this particular project is such that it would impact the oil and gas industry, or the regional or national economy, at a broader level”

“these do not demonstrate the national importance of his specific endeavor, but instead describe the importance and effect of these overall fields and activities”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the record lacks context to show that the scope of this particular project is such that it would impact the oil and gas industry, or the regional or national economy, at a broader level”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the writer's focus on the Petitioner's finance skills is not relevant to our determination under the Dhanasar framework of whether his proposed endeavor is of national importance”

  AAO decision text
• funding · discounted

  “the Petitioner has not shown how it supports the national importance of his endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “data and statistics about the broader oil and gas industry in the United States do not help to establish the national importance of that endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “these do not demonstrate the national importance of his specific endeavor, but instead describe the importance and effect of these overall fields and activities”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• 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

Notable

The AAO found the Petitioner impermissibly attempted a material change by shifting his proposed endeavor to a newly formed company and new oil/gas projects created after filing, and declined to consider evidence about those new projects under Matter of Izummi/Katigbak; it also found one project waived on appeal under Matter of O-R-E-/R-A-M- for lack of argument.

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. 103.2(b)(12)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.3
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
• Matter of Izummi
• Matter of Katigbak
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Matter of O-R-E-
• Matter of R-A-M-
• 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