The Petitioner, an economic development professional, proposed to develop international expansion strategies for U.S. small- and medium-sized enterprises to strengthen business relationships with Latin America and enhance U.S. economic competitiveness, including plans to open his own consulting firm.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner did not clearly define his proposed endeavor in the initial filing.”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work, but rather the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake”

“This evidence relates only to the field of international trade in general and not the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor.”

“the record does not contain sufficient evidence to establish that the impact of his proposed endeavor has the potential rise to the level of national importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• degree · credited
• other · discounted

  “This evidence relates only to the field of international trade in general and not the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor.”

  AAO decision text

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

Notable

Petitioner argued the Director failed to consider all record evidence, citing a non-binding district court decision (Buletini v. INS); AAO rejected this, noting district court reasoning is not binding precedent and citing multiple circuit decisions holding agencies need not address every piece of evidence. AAO declined to reach the second and third Dhanasar prongs, having already found the first prong dispositive.

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. 103.2(b)(1)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.3
• Buletini v. INS
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
• The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
• The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
• The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
• The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution