The Petitioner, a computer and information systems manager, proposed to work in IT and eventually to found his own IT consulting company offering insurance management software, licensing, training, and consulting services.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the evidence does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's company and its activities would have economic impacts beyond the clients it would serve”

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

“the job creation and revenue projections included therein are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how those projections will be realized”

“As the company is not yet formed and does not have a physical location, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence that his business will be located in a HUBZone”

“he has not suggested that his proposed endeavor would lessen the shortage of trained IT professionals on a scale rising to the level of national importance”

“much of the content of the expert opinion letter lacked relevance and probative value with respect to the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the job creation and revenue projections included therein are not supported by details showing their basis”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the submitted recommendation letters and other evidence do not contain sufficient detail to corroborate this claimed impact”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

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

  AAO decision text
• media · discounted

  “the evidence does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's company and its activities would have economic impacts beyond the clients it would serve”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · credited

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
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

The Petitioner attempted to analogize his intended HUBZone business location to an 'economically depressed area' for national importance purposes; the AAO rejected this as an inequitable comparison and noted the business was not yet formed. The AAO also found the submitted expert opinion letter internally inconsistent, as its author appeared to misunderstand the Petitioner's actual business model.

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
• INA 203(b)(2)
• Matter of Caron Int'l
• Matter of D-R-
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Poursina v. USCIS

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