The Petitioner sought to work as CEO and owner of his own company in Florida specializing in stationery, visual communication, and digital printing products and services, with plans to expand to other states, and also claimed to offer business consulting services to U.S. companies.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”

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

“General conclusory statements without a sufficiently direct evidentiary tie between the proposed endeavor and the claimed economic or other impacts are insufficient”

“The Petitioner's business plan, however, provides little explanation for the basis of these projections”

“There is little evidence that his proposed endeavor stands to impact or significantly reduce the claimed national shortage”

“the opinion letter does not offer specific details on how the Petitioner's endeavor would accomplish these goals or how any impact would extend beyond the direct companies and clients”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “provides little explanation for the basis of these projections”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “does not offer specific details on how the Petitioner's endeavor would accomplish these goals”

  AAO decision text
• media · discounted

  “provide only general background information on these subjects and do not specifically relate to or discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, education, and experience are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”

  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
• Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

AAO sua sponte questioned whether the Director's finding that Petitioner met exceptional-ability criteria was correct, but declined to resolve it since prong 1 failure was dispositive; also noted an unaddressed portion of the endeavor (business consulting) was too vague to analyze at all under Dhanasar.

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)
• Flores v. Garland

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