The Petitioner proposed to work as chief financial officer of her own consulting company providing supply chain advisory services and consumables/materials to mining, manufacturing, and oil and gas businesses in the U.S.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not described how her employment as the chief financial officer for her company will have a broader impact on the field of logistics.”

“these generalized statements neglect to sufficiently explain how the Petitioner's work as a financial officer for one company will have an impact extending beyond the company's consulting clients”

“This conclusion lacks sufficient analytical support, and it conflates the field's importance with the endeavor's importance.”

“the plan does not explain how these forecasts were calculated, or adequately clarify how these projections will be realized, nor does the record contain evidence to support the business plan's financial projections.”

“The record does not illustrate how creating 13 jobs and generating $120,905 in net profit by year five, as projected in the business plan, would have substantial positive economic effects on the level of national importance.”

“He then summarily concludes from the importance of these fields that her proposed endeavor is nationally important. This conclusion ignores the requirements of Dhanasar.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the lack of supporting details detracts from the credibility and probative value of the business plan.”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “we will reject an opinion or give it less weight if it is not in accord with other information in the record or if it is in any way questionable.”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “These articles and reports are of little evidentiary value as they do not address the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”

  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
• Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact

Notable

AAO noted several submitted articles postdated the filing date and were disregarded under 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(1),(12); AAO declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 as prong 1 failure was dispositive.

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. 103.3
• Flores v. Garland
• INA 203(b)(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