The Petitioner planned to establish a company providing telecommunication consulting, training, project management, and security-system upgrade services related to fiber optic technology, including upgrades to real estate investment properties he owned.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and its clientele to impact the information and communication technology fields or the U.S. economy more broadly”

“he has not shown that his company's future staffing levels and consulting activity stand to provide substantial economic benefits in any particular region”

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

“he has not offered sufficient evidence that would employ a significant population of workers in an economically depressed area”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “it does not demonstrate that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “The letters of support mainly focus on the Petitioner's skills, knowledge, and past work experience rather than the national importance of his proposed endeavor.”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

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
• 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

AAO noted the Director had construed the petition as asserting three distinct endeavors, which the Petitioner contested on appeal, but the AAO did not resolve that dispute and instead analyzed the endeavor as described in the RFE response and business plan, finding it insufficient on prong one alone.

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.

• INA 203(b)(2)
• 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