The Petitioner sought to open a financial consulting business, initially describing himself as a 'Financial and Investment Analysis Specialist,' to help construction and agricultural companies increase profit margins, market share, and financial stability, later described as offering hedge-protection financial advisory services.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner did not provide further detail on the specific prospective occupation or proposed endeavor that he would focus on to illustrate the nature of the work that he would perform during his day-to-day work activities.”

“The record does not include a plan or other indication of how the Petitioner will operate a financial consulting business that will impact business at the level of national importance contemplated under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.”

“Absent probative evidence to show the realistic potential of the Petitioner's company to operate at all, it is not evident that the company will generate revenue to create jobs, to expand, or to otherwise notably impact the economy”

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

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “The record does not include a plan or other indication of how the Petitioner will operate a financial consulting business that will impact business at the level of national importance”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “The Petitioner has not established on appeal that his intent to apply his knowledge to his prospective clients is an activity that will have a broad impact.”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · 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

Notable

AAO disagreed with the Director's finding that the business-plan evidence submitted in RFE response constituted a material change under Matter of Katigbak, and held the Director erred in declining to consider it; nonetheless AAO independently found the endeavor still failed prong one on the merits, dismissing on that basis. Also addresses and rejects a due-process/abuse-of-discretion argument under Buletini v. INS regarding failure to individually address each piece of evidence.

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.

• Buletini v. INS
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of Katigbak
• Matter of L-A-C-

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