The Petitioner proposed to work as an independent digital marketing consultant in the U.S., focusing on helping women business owners and entrepreneurs grow their businesses through digital marketing tools.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the relevant question in determining national importance is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which an individual will work, but rather "the specific endeavor that [the individual] proposes to undertake."”

“these initiatives do not discuss the Petitioner's specific endeavor, do not help demonstrate the potential prospective impact of the endeavor on women's business ownership in the United States, and do not otherwise demonstrate the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”

“the record does not demonstrate that the endeavor has the potential to result in a broad impact that would rise to the level of national importance.”

“the Petitioner has not offered a sufficiently direct connection between her proposed endeavor and any demonstrable economic or societal welfare effects.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• other · discounted

  “do not discuss the Petitioner's specific endeavor, do not help demonstrate the potential prospective impact”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “Any professional or business service has the potential to positively impact its clients and community”

  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

Notable

Petitioner raised a procedural due-process-style argument that the RFE and decision failed to discuss the entirety of the evidence submitted, citing Buletini v. INS; AAO rejected this, holding district court decisions are not binding and that USCIS need not address every piece of evidence, citing multiple circuit court cases (Osuchukwu, Ren, Larita-Martinez).

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)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.3
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
• Buletini v. INS
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of L-A-C-

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