The Petitioner sought to work as an entrepreneur owning and operating his own trucking company in Illinois, providing logistics services including pickup, packaging, and interstate transport of dry-van and refrigerated goods.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“He has not provided sufficient documentary evidence that his proposed endeavor to be the owner of his trucking company would impact the trucking industry more broadly rather than benefiting his own company and its clients.”

“However, the business plan does not provide sufficient details of the basis for these projections or adequately explain how this revenue will be realized.”

“In this case, since the expert opinion letter is referencing things not in the record and contains several conflicting statements, we give less weight to that evidence”

“In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”

“While the report and study referenced by the Petitioner indicate the importance of small businesses in the U.S. economy and competitiveness... they do not specifically establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will have broader implications”

“Nor has the Petitioner demonstrated that any increase in his company's revenue stands to substantially affect economic activity regionally or nationally.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the business plan does not provide sufficient details of the basis for these projections or adequately explain how this revenue will be realized”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “since the expert opinion letter is referencing things not in the record and contains several conflicting statements, we give less weight to that evidence”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted
• other · discounted

  “they do not specifically establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will have broader implications in the U.S. economy”

  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
• Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
• Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
• 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

The AAO gave reduced weight to an expert advisory opinion letter because it contained factual claims (years of experience, employment dates, number of employees) directly contradicted by the Petitioner's own resume, Form I-485, and ETA 750, illustrating a credibility-based discounting of a supporting letter rather than mere conclusory-language discounting.

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
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
• 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