The Petitioner proposed to operate a consulting business in California offering tax planning and preparation, bookkeeping, payroll, and financial consulting services primarily to small corporations, self-employed individuals, and non-profits.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and its clientele to impact his field, the tax, accounting, and financial services consulting industry, or the U.S. economy more broadly”

“the alleged shortage of occupations or occupational skills does not render his proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework”

“the issue here is not the national importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”

“these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved”

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the potential prospective impact of his proposed endeavor stands to offer broader implications in his field or to generate substantial positive economic effects”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “The Petitioner's skills, knowledge, and prior work in his field, however, relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “an occupational shortage does not, by itself, establish that the work would impact the broader field or otherwise have implications rising to the national importance”

  AAO decision text
• certification membership · discounted

  “relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”

  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
• 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 Director made contradictory statements in the underlying decision (initially finding the Petitioner did not meet any prong, then later finding he met the EB-2 threshold and prong 2); the AAO characterized these as inadvertent errors and accepted the favorable findings on threshold and prong 2 without independent review. The business plan contained internally inconsistent salary figures across multiple pages, which the AAO flagged as an unresolved inconsistency under Matter of Ho. The AAO declined to reach prong 3 as prong 1 was dispositive.

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