The Petitioner proposed to operate his own consultancy company in Florida, providing data science solutions and IT consulting services including solution architecture, leadership, and project management to businesses.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

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

“the record does not include adequate corroborating evidence to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor offers broader implications in his field”

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

“we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his clients to enhance societal welfare on a broader scale”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

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

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · ignored
• other · discounted

  “the record does not include adequate corroborating evidence to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor offers broader implications in his field”

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

Notable

The Petitioner argued the Director committed abuse of discretion and misapplied law by overlooking evidence; AAO rejected the argument that Dhanasar does not require showing broader field impact. The Director had acknowledged substantial merit but found national importance, prong 2, and prong 3 all unmet; AAO only reached prong 1 as 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. 103.3
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Poursina v. USCIS

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