The Petitioner sought to establish a sales and marketing organization to promote 'smaller' U.S. tourism destinations beyond the top 20 most visited, targeting international travelers from Spanish-speaking countries through marketing campaigns and market research.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“Rather, the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his specific, proposed endeavor of establishing a sales and marketing organization to promote tourism to destinations in the United States beyond the top 20 most visited cities.”

“However, this information relates to tourism in general and does not provide relevant information supporting the Petitioner's claim that his specific proposed endeavor is nationally important.”

“Furthermore, other than stating generally that he plans to bring tourism to lesser-known areas, the Petitioner did not specify any towns, cities, or regions in which he intends to focus his efforts.”

“The Petitioner did not present any supporting evidence corroborating the assertions and figures.”

“The Petitioner did not establish the significance of this data to show that the benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar.”

“The record does not show through supporting documentation how the Petitioner's endeavor sufficiently extends beyond his prospective clients or employees to impact the field or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• other · discounted

  “this evidence is still general in nature and does not specifically address the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• business plan · discounted

  “the Petitioner did not present any supporting evidence corroborating the assertions and figures”

  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
• 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 Director had found substantial merit satisfied but not national importance; AAO's national importance analysis notes the Petitioner conflated general importance of the tourism industry with the specific importance of his own endeavor, and the AAO explicitly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3, citing Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- as authority to avoid unnecessary findings.

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
• Flores v. Garland
• 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