The Petitioner sought to operate a Florida-based company providing affordable, sustainable packaging solutions to small and medium enterprises, including manufacturing reusable/eco-friendly bags and reducing reliance on imported packaging.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Director correctly noted the Petitioner "repeatedly relies upon arguments related to the importance of the field, rather than the importance of the proposed endeavor."”

“it is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the Petitioner will work, but the specific endeavor the individual proposes to undertake that establishes its national importance”

“The Petitioner's sources relating the value of the packaging industry supports our conclusion that her endeavor has substantial merit, however, they do not establish her endeavor's national importance.”

“the Company does not have a physical location, thus the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence to establish her business will have the impact she describes.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the Company does not have a physical location, thus the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence to establish her business will have the impact she describes”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “they do not establish her endeavor's national importance”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · ignored

  “relate to the second prong of Dhanasar's analytical framework, where we consider whether the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · ignored

  “relate to the second prong of Dhanasar's analytical framework, where we consider whether the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance her 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

Notable

AAO withdrew the Director's unexplained finding that the endeavor lacked substantial merit but still dismissed the appeal, finding national importance unestablished; AAO also noted the Director had misstated the Petitioner's degree field (accounting vs. industrial engineering) but declined to remand for that error; AAO drew an adverse inference from inconsistent business address/registered-agent documentation.

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)
• Buletini v. INS
• INA 203(b)(2)
• Matter of Ho
• Matter of L-A-C-
• USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)

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