The Petitioner, a business consultant, proposed to work as a business management specialist through his own company, providing consulting services such as cross-border investment structuring, business planning, marketing strategy, financial organization, and management education to small and midsize enterprises.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not show that his specific proposed endeavor's impact stands to sufficiently extend beyond his own company and its clientele”

“the Petitioner had not demonstrated that his revenue projections and potential business activity...would provide a significant economic benefit to the United States”

“the authors did not provide additional analysis or corroborating details to support the restated claims”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the specific endeavor”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the authors did not provide additional analysis or corroborating details to support the restated claims”

  AAO decision text
• business plan · discounted

  “does not sufficiently extend beyond his own company and its clientele to impact his field or industry”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

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

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · discounted

  “The Petitioner has not established facts relevant to our appellate decision that would warrant reopening”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• 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

Notable

Petitioner unsuccessfully argued the AAO erred by not applying Matter of E-L-H- (precedent binding effect) and by using a 'stricter standard'; AAO distinguished the facts from Dhanasar itself, noting the letters and expert opinions here lacked the specificity and independent corroboration present in that case. AAO reiterated it had reserved prongs 2 and 3 per Bagamasbad/L-A-C- since prong 1 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. 103.5
• Matter of Coelho
• Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
• The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
• The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
• The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
• The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution