The Petitioner sought to start and direct a Florida-based consulting company providing individualized farm-visit services in animal breeding, genetics, and sustainable agricultural practices to farmers and ranchers nationwide.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“this geographical focus is insufficient to show that her activities and those of her company would have the broader impact on the meat and dairy industries in the United States that she claims”

“the record lacks evidence that even the indirect economic effects of the agribusiness consulting services to be provided by the Petitioner's company would substantially impact the regional or national economy”

“these reports and articles do not address or support the national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor of providing agribusiness consulting to individual small and medium-sized farms and ranches”

“she does not elaborate on the nature of these innovations other than to refer to "customized consulting services," and again does not describe how any innovations would be widely disseminated”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “These services are individualized and not applicable to additional farms and ranches, and therefore can only potentially transform a particular client's facilities and operations.”

  AAO decision text
• media · discounted

  “these reports and articles do not address or support the national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · ignored

  “the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on appeal”

  AAO decision text
• degree · credited

Where this case turned

• 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
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

AAO declined to accept additional USDA reports submitted for the first time on appeal, citing Matter of Soriano and Matter of Obaigbena. AAO also cited Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) for the proposition that NIW adjudication is discretionary in nature, joining other circuits on that point.

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
• 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