The Petitioner proposed to work as a market development executive for his own content production company in Texas, generally aiming to create employment and work with artists, government entities, and non-profits on culturally-oriented audiovisual projects.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not clarify the number of workers whose employment the proposed endeavor may create, which employer(s) would hire those workers, the workers' job title(s) and duties”

“how the 'proposed endeavor has implications beyond [the Petitioner's] current employer (or prospective employer), their business partners, alliances, and/or clients/customers'”

“the Petitioner's references to generalized information regarding NEA grants and governmental budgeting do not address the Petitioner, his proposed endeavor, and how the proposed endeavor may have broader implications”

“the national importance aspect of the first Dhanasar prong considers whether an endeavor may have 'national or even global implications within a particular field'... not merely whether an endeavor is in a field with merit”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the record does not clarify the number of workers... which employer(s) would hire those workers, the workers' job title(s) and duties”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the Petitioner's references to generalized information regarding NEA grants and governmental budgeting do not address the Petitioner, his proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
• 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

The Director's decision was procedurally unusual: it addressed the national interest waiver despite apparently also finding the Petitioner ineligible for the underlying EB-2 classification, and did not clarify whether the advanced-degree alternative was considered; the AAO expressly reserved opinion on threshold eligibility, resolving the appeal solely on prong 1 national importance.

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
• Flores v. Garland
• INA 203(b)(2)
• 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