The Petitioner sought to open a company offering leadership, communication, and personal-development training and coaching services to entrepreneurs, managers, and executives, targeting the Brazilian community in a specific U.S. area.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The evidence does not suggest that the Petitioner's skills differ from or improve upon those already available and in use in the United States.”

“Much of the Petitioner's evidence relates to the power and impact of entrepreneurship generally, rather than his specific proposed endeavor.”

“The Petitioner, however, did not sufficiently describe the origin or basis for these projections and, even if he had, they would not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”

“Here, the Petitioner has not established how his individual employment as a coach specialist and owner of his own company would affect the U.S. economy more broadly consistent with national importance.”

“Here, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “did not sufficiently describe the origin or basis for these projections and, even if he had, they would not establish the national importance”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”

  AAO decision text
• media · discounted

  “they are not specific to the Petitioner's field or the location of his proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”

  AAO decision text
• degree · ignored

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
• 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
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

AAO explicitly distinguishes national importance analysis from petitioner's personal qualifications, noting the latter belongs to prong 2 even though only prong 1 was reached; cites Dhanasar's own teaching example as analogous.

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 L-A-C-
• 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