The Petitioner proposed to own and operate a company providing human resources consultation services to U.S. businesses, citing benefits such as staffing solutions and business growth for clients.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the impact of that endeavor would be limited to the Petitioner's company and its clients and would not broadly impact the field of human resources or offer substantial positive economic benefits”

“labor shortages in a particular field, such as those the Petitioner mentioned, do not render the proposed endeavor nationally important”

“the business plan does not demonstrate that the potential prospective impact of the proposed endeavor would be go beyond the Petitioner's company and the clients it would service”

“the letter does not offer any analysis or numerical breakdowns to substantiate how the Petitioner's human resources consulting would benefit the nation's labor market”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “these submissions were deemed insufficient for the purpose of demonstrating broad impact at a level that is commensurate with national importance”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “she does not establish that the letter sufficiently demonstrated the proposed endeavor's significant potential to employee U.S. workers”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “she does not explain how the client letter demonstrates the broader impact of the Petitioner's endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• degree · credited
• motion resubmission · discounted

  “the previously submitted evidence, some of which has been resubmitted on appeal, demonstrates that her endeavor rises to the level of national importance”

  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
• Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

AAO rejected Petitioner's argument that Director applied wrong standard of proof, clarifying preponderance of evidence is the correct standard. AAO also distinguished Petitioner's cited non-precedent AAO decisions as involving EB-1 extraordinary ability rather than EB-2, and noted non-precedent decisions are not binding.

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. 103.3
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
• Chen v. INS
• Matter of L-A-C-

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