The Petitioner sought to expand his digital signage company, which provides hardware, software, and services to retail stores, government agencies, and professional firms, in the United States and internationally.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence that his endeavor has national importance, which focuses on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake,"”

“we conclude that the record does not show that the Petitioner' s proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company, business partnerships, and clientele to imp act the marketing field more broadly”

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects”

“it has not provided evidence to substantiate the projected rate of growth”

“he has not offered evidence to support this claim, which he made for this first time on appeal”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “it has not provided evidence to substantiate the projected rate of growth”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “The Petitioner did not expand on the basis for making this claim or provide evidence of his company's placement”

  AAO decision text
• contract revenue · discounted

  “he has not explained how the benefits to the regional or national economy would reach 1he level of "substantial positive economic effects"”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the Petitioner has not offered evidence to support this claim, which he made for this first time on appeal”

  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
• Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
• Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor

Notable

AAO rejected a new claim raised for the first time on appeal (that the endeavor would impact the medical field) as an impermissible material change under Matter of Izummi. The decision explicitly frames each stated basis as an independent and alternate ground for dismissal, though only prong 1 was substantively analyzed.

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.

• INA 203(b)(2)
• INA 291
• Matter of Izummi
• 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