The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in the technology sector, proposed an endeavor related to 5G networks, the Internet of Things, and cybersecurity, claiming it would help thousands of companies and people.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“Here, the Petitioner improperly relies upon the importance of the industry and professions within in it”

“The Petitioner's statements contain assertions that he will help "thousands of companies and people," but he provides Iittle to no information on how his endeavor will operate on such a scale”

“The record does not contain an evidentiary basis to conclude that the effects of his specific proposed endeavor will rise to the level of national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “do not analyze the proposed endeavor or offer evidence of its impact”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “do not reference the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”

  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

Notable

AAO adopted and affirmed the Director's decision under Matter of Burbano while also providing 'individualized consideration.' The Petitioner argued the Director imposed an implicit business-plan requirement, which the AAO rejected as unsupported by the record. The AAO also rejected a Buletini-based abuse-of-discretion argument, holding the Director need not address every piece of evidence individually.

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
• Buletini v. INS
• Chen v. INS
• Matter of L-A-C-