The Petitioner, a software developer, proposed to establish his own company in North Carolina providing customizable middleware software connecting industrial devices/machinery with MES and ERP systems, focused on the textile manufacturing sector.

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”

“Dhanasar requires us to focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake," not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work.”

“the Petitioner's business plan projects that his company will have four total employees by the fifth year of operation.”

“the record does not sufficiently show how the business will pay salaries, which are projected to exceed $194,000 by the fifth year”

“the record lacks evidence showing investment funds from individuals or companies beyond the Petitioner or other contractual commitments to work with the proposed company.”

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his company has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the record does not sufficiently show how the business will pay salaries...in addition to other business expenses”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the evidence does not demonstrate that the work the Petitioner intends to perform through his company would result in a significant impact”

  AAO decision text
• citations publications · discounted

  “the record lacks sufficient evidence to show the claimed prospective impact of his proposed company”

  AAO decision text
• funding · discounted

  “the record lacks evidence showing investment funds from individuals or companies beyond the Petitioner”

  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
• Funding absent · p1 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan

Notable

The AAO acknowledged the Director's denial contained several erroneous references (e.g., incorrectly noting the Petitioner was represented by counsel, referring to a 'prospective employer' though he intended self-employment, and mislabeling the business plan as a 'professional plan'), but still agreed with the Director's ultimate first-prong conclusion despite these errors.

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
• 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