The petitioner, a civil project manager, proposed to operate his own construction consulting and project management business in Georgia, serving clients building, renovating, and developing residential and commercial properties.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner has not demonstrated how conferring the benefit to their clients grows beyond their clients alone.”

“the evidence in the record does not reflect that the State of Georgia as a whole is an economically depressed area.”

“we observe that the Petitioner submitted two business plans in the record with widely varying figures on job creation and financial data without explanation.”

“each both authors try root the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in the importance of the construction or infrastructure or civil engineering fields.”

“The Petitioner's argument spotlights a fundamental misunderstanding of the Dhanasar framework's first prong.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the Petitioner's business plan does not sufficiently demonstrate the potential prospective economic impact”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the letters focused on the Petitioner's past work”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “the Petitioner's contentions about their successful career-to-date...are irrelevant to an examination of their eligibility under the first prong”

  AAO decision text
• other · credited

Where this case turned

• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• 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 decision explicitly distinguishes between the petitioner's personal track record/execution (relevant to prong 2) and the proposed endeavor itself (relevant to prong 1), criticizing both the petitioner's own arguments and both expert opinion letters for conflating the importance of the field with the specific endeavor's national importance. AAO reserved prongs 2 and 3 entirely, citing Bagamasbad.

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
• Matter of Caron Int'l
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Matter of Y-B-
• Section 291 of the Act

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