The Petitioner, a general operations manager with a background in the food and logistics industries, proposed to continue working as an operations manager while also providing business management consulting services to U.S. and foreign companies, including helping companies expand internationally.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the [P]etitioner has not established that the level of work he proposes to perform will impact the field more broadly as opposed to impacting potential clients or businesses.”

“The proposed endeavor of managing business operations of a logistics company and providing business consulting services to other companies benefits those companies and clients.”

“the record does not establish how the endeavor would have broader implications in terms of significant potential to employ U.S. workers or have substantial positive economic effects, beyond the Petitioner's employer and clients”

“provides no evidence demonstrating how his specific proposed endeavor would impact the economy or the field.”

“the Petitioner's focus on appeal on the economic results of commercial activity in general does not address aspects of the specific endeavor”

“A visa petition may not be approved based on speculation of future eligibility or after a petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services requirements.”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “do not address how the proposed endeavor in the United States has broader implications beyond his immediate employer and clients.”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “does not address aspects of the specific endeavor and how the performance of the planned activities under the endeavor would have broader implications”

  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
• Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
• 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 AAO treats the Petitioner's post-filing creation of a U.S. consulting company as an impermissible material change/after-acquired-eligibility issue (footnote 3, citing Michelin Tire and Izummi), folding this speculation concern into the prong 1 national importance analysis.

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)
• INA 203(b)(2)
• Matter of Izummi

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