The Petitioner, a police inspector, proposed to establish a private security company in the U.S., intending to grow it into a business that would create jobs and contribute to public safety and the local economy.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“simply showing "growth potential" is not equivalent to demonstrating "significant economic impact" or "substantial positive economic effects" as contemplated by Dhanasar.”

“we correctly concluded the Petitioner had not adequately demonstrated that the potential prospective impact of his endeavor would rise to the level of national importance.”

“the Petitioner's work in an industry or sector that is the subject of national initiatives is not sufficient, in and of itself, to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “The Petitioner's updated business plan does not constitute "new facts," but rather cumulative, repackaging of materials already in the record”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · discounted

  “Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does not constitute the submission of "new facts."”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “The points we highlighted addressed these claims of alleged job creation and potential tax revenue... these details served as examples, not mandatory requirements, of why the evidence did not sufficiently corroborate the experts' assertions.”

  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
• Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact

Notable

This is a motion decision reviewing AAO's own prior appellate dismissal; the Petitioner made detailed textual arguments parsing Dhanasar's exact wording (e.g., 'benefits' vs 'effects', placement of 'significant'), which the AAO characterized as misreading illustrative examples as mandatory requirements. AAO explicitly noted it had reserved prongs 2 and 3 in the prior decision as unnecessary given prong 1 was 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. 103.5
• Matter of Coelho
• 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