The Petitioner proposed to found, own, and manage a bilingual STEAM-focused daycare center in Florida, with plans to expand to four additional locations by year five.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the totality of the evidence, including the new business plan, does not show that it has national importance”

“the Petitioner's expanding parameters and terms beyond his initially proposed endeavor impedes our ability to meaningfully evaluate whether it is of national importance”

“under Dhanasar's first prong, we assess whether the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has broader implications in the field, rather than the general significance of work of the entire industry”

“These conflicting figures, which diminish the claimed evidentiary value of each business plan, are speculative”

“the record does not contain any evidence independently corroborating this assertion”

“The business plans by themselves thus do not show a significant potential to employ U.S. workers or substantial positive economic effects that may indicate national importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “These conflicting figures, which diminish the claimed evidentiary value of each business plan, are speculative”

  AAO decision text
• funding · discounted

  “the record does not contain any evidence independently corroborating this assertion”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “does not show how his work would have the broader implications for the industry, U.S. education system, and the country's economy”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “the Petitioner's reliance on his credentials and experience relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “mainly emphasize the value of the STEAM education at large, rather than its importance in relation to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor specifically”

  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
• Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor

Notable

AAO found an independent, alternative dispositive basis: the Petitioner's RFE response constituted an impermissible material change to the endeavor under Matter of Izummi (drastically altered age range, staffing projections increased 42x, revenue projections increased 39x), which alone impeded national-importance review even before reaching the merits of national importance.

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.

• Flores v. Garland
• INA 203(b)(2)
• Matter of E-M-
• Matter of Izummi

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