The Petitioner, an electrical engineer, proposed to operate his own consulting company providing engineering and technical sales services to businesses upgrading or replacing electrical machinery, with plans to hire up to 15 employees over five years.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner's business plan provides figures that are not suitably supported by relevant data and analysis specific to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”

“The record does not show through supporting documentation how the Petitioner's endeavor of operating a consulting company sufficiently extends beyond his prospective customers and employees to impact the field”

“the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his business plan's claimed revenue and employment projections, even if credible or plausible, have significant potential to employ U.S. workers”

“the Petitioner did not establish the significance of this data to show that the benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”

“he did not provide sufficient evidence of how he came to this conclusion”

“this article is general in nature and does not involve the Petitioner and his proposed endeavor”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “provides only general statements on how these projections were developed but does not provide sufficient information of the specific proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “did not provide sufficient evidence of how he came to this conclusion”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · discounted

  “the information reiterates the sales forecast for the proposed business from year one to year five”

  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
• Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
• Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

AAO rejected Petitioner's claim that it issued a 'boilerplate decision' and his due-process argument that he was not given notice of derogatory information (the business plan's lack of support), finding that deficiencies identified in the record are not 'derogatory information' requiring separate notice. AAO also rejected an IBISWorld industry-average-employee comparison as too general and clarified that Dhanasar's 'significant potential to employ U.S. workers' language does not create a presumption of national importance from job creation 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.

• 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(1)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
• INA 203(b)(2)
• Matter of Coelho
• Matter of O-S-G-

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