The Petitioner, a Brazilian industrial engineer with extensive experience in concrete manufacturing, proposed to own and operate a Florida-based company manufacturing and wholesaling permeable concrete pavers marketed to swimming pool builders and landscape designers.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

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

“the evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate that the proposed endeavor would offer a region or its population a substantial direct economic benefit through employment levels, business activity, or related tax revenue”

“The plan does not, however, provide sufficient details regarding the basis for these projections, or adequately explain how these staffing and sales targets will be realized.”

“While the authors of these letters express their high opinion of the Petitioner and his prior work in the field, they do not discuss his specific proposed endeavor in the United States or explain why it has national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “does not provide sufficient details regarding the basis for these projections, or adequately explain how these staffing and sales targets will be realized”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “they do not discuss his specific proposed endeavor in the United States or explain why it has national importance”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “his knowledge, skills, education, and experience are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”

  AAO decision text
• media · credited
• other · discounted

  “much of the content of the expert opinion letter lacked relevance and probative value with respect to the national importance of 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
• 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

The AAO noted an inconsistency between the Petitioner's initial professional plan (assisting U.S. companies with export channels to Brazil) and his later business plan (manufacturing pavers in Florida), used to undercut credibility of the expert letter's characterization of the endeavor. The AAO expressly declined to reach Dhanasar prong three, resolving the appeal solely on prong one's national importance requirement.

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)
• INA 203(b)(2)
• Matter of Caron Int'l
• Matter of D-R-
• Matter of L-A-C-
• USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)

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