The Petitioner, an urban planner, proposed to establish an urban planning department at her employer's northern Virginia office and develop '15-minute city' projects, later reframed on motion as advancing a '15-Minute City model' generally.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“Nothing presented shows how the proposed endeavor would sufficiently extend beyond either her own employer or her prospective clients or rise to the level of national importance.”

“We concluded that the Petitioner did not show how her services would largely influence the field and rise to the level of national importance.”

“the Petitioner had not demonstrated that her endeavor would have a significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for the United States.”

“the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of her specific, proposed endeavor.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• other · discounted

  “Nothing presented shows how the proposed endeavor would sufficiently extend beyond either her own employer or her prospective clients”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · discounted

  “The Petitioner's contentions in the current motion merely reargue facts and issues we have already considered in our previous decision.”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
• Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

AAO had previously reserved decision on prongs 2 and 3 after finding prong 1 dispositive; on motion, AAO reaffirms it need not reach those prongs, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the proposition that unnecessary rulings serve no purpose. The Petitioner reformulated the endeavor on motion (claiming she would now be based in Sweden), which the AAO found immaterial to the national importance analysis.

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. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of Coelho
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Matter of O-S-G-

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
• The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
• The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
• The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
• The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution