The Petitioner, a former military/police officer with a law degree, proposed to own and operate a U.S.-based transportation security company as CEO, providing security and cargo protection services to large companies.

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“We agree that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated a record of success as a founder and CEO of an entrepreneurial enterprise.”

“the record does not establish that he has previously performed duties comparable to those he states he intends to perform in the United States”

“does not speak to his previous successes in activities related to his proposed endeavor to act as the chief executive of a transportation security business”

“He concludes, without further explanation, that "it is clear to see that he is extremely qualified in the field of Transportation Security"”

“the record does not contain supporting evidence elaborating on how the Petitioner...will secure contracts among large firms or show that such companies have expressed interest”

“The record does not establish that the Petitioner had taken any concrete steps toward implementing the business plan before filing the petition or while it was pending.”

“The business plan indicates that this company would require an initial investment of $75,000 from the Petitioner but does not document the availability of these funds”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the record does not establish that the Petitioner had taken any concrete steps toward implementing the business plan”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “does not speak to his previous successes in activities related to his proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “most of his work experience and past achievements are unrelated to his proposed entrepreneurial endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• certification membership · credited
• media · discounted

  “Dhanasar's second prong does not merely require evidence that there is a general industry demand”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
• Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
• Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
• Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
• No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
• Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish

Notable

AAO expressly credited Petitioner's law-enforcement qualifications and training but found them irrelevant to the entrepreneurial CEO endeavor; reserved prongs 1 and 3 entirely.

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-

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