The Petitioner, an entrepreneur with prior cargo transportation experience in Brazil, sought to open and operate a U.S. general cargo transportation and logistics consulting company, including licensing a route-optimization software product.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“Notably, the Petitioner does not explain the significance ofthis distinction, and she directly contradicts her prior statements in the record.”

“the prospective impact of her endeavor would not sufficiently extend beyond her clients to lead to broader implications within the industry or field.”

“the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of her financial projections.”

“the Petitioner did not elaborate on how she intended to recruit 50 truck drivers in a five-year period given the stated shortage of truck drivers.”

“But even if the endeavor's revenue and job creation projections were sufficiently explained, they do not establish that her company would operate on a scale rising to the level of national importance.”

“The expert opinion letter provides conclusory statements that seemingly could apply to the implementation of any new business”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work, or the customer base they plan to serve”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of her financial projections.”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the testimonial evidence on record does not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor.”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the submitted industry articles and reports do not alone establish the national importance of the Petitioner's endeavor.”

  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 conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

The Petitioner argued on appeal that her company was merely the 'means' to advance her endeavor rather than the endeavor itself, but the AAO noted this directly contradicted her prior RFE response and that she failed to explain the significance of the distinction.

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 Caron Int'l
• Matter of D-R-
• Matter of L-A-C-
• USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)

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