The Petitioner, an airplane pilot, proposed to found and lead an aviation consulting company in Florida offering services such as flight operations optimization, safety consulting, pilot training, and aircraft acquisition advice, with plans to expand to other states.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong, which is dispositive.”

“the plan omits details such as the particular location in Florida where the company would be based and operate and estimates regarding the number of clients the company would serve”

“the totality of the record supports the conclusion the proposed endeavor may benefit the Petitioner, as the CEO of his own company, and its particular clients and business partners”

“the record indicates that the company would provide the same type of aviation consulting services already provided by similar, existing companies”

“the importance of an industry, field, or profession is not the relevant question in determining whether the specific endeavor an individual proposes to undertake may have national importance”

“The business plan provides unsubstantiated and internally inconsistent estimates to reach its financial forecasts.”

“This doubt undermines the reliability and sufficiency of the remainder of the record.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “The unsubstantiated, internally inconsistent, and generally vague issues addressed above cast doubt on the reliability and sufficiency of the business plan”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “they do not discuss how the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have national or even global implications within the field of aviation”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · discounted

  “the Petitioner's references to events that occurred in 2024 and 2025, after he filed the Form I-140 in 2023, cannot establish eligibility”

  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
• 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

AAO devoted extensive analysis to internal inconsistencies in the business plan's financial math (working hours/days, revenue calculations, rent estimates) and treated the RFE-updated business plan as an impermissible material change under Matter of Izummi/Katigbak rather than curative evidence.

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
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of Ho
• Matter of Izummi
• Matter of Katigbak
• 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