The Petitioner, an industrial engineer with over 20 years of experience, proposed to start and run a consulting company in Georgia providing supply chain, logistics, and warehouse optimization services to small and medium-sized U.S. businesses using models such as Constraint Theory and Slotting.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“he has not established through independent evidence that his endeavor will impact the field of supply chain management more broadly”

“the fact that a petitioner is qualified for and may accept a position 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 a specific endeavor”

“the plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for the revenue and staffing projections, nor does it adequately explain how the revenue and staffing projections will be realized”

“these terms are not sufficiently defined or explained to establish that his services are innovative or differ from the supply chain and logistics methods already in practice in the United States”

“the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his clients to impact his field more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for the revenue and staffing projections, nor does it adequately explain how the revenue and staffing projections will be realized”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted
• other · discounted

  “None of the reports provided discuss the Petitioner's specific endeavor or its impact.”

  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
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

Petitioner raised procedural arguments (citing Love Korean Church and Buletini) alleging the Director imposed novel/undefined requirements and failed to discuss all evidence; AAO rejected both arguments, finding any error harmless and that adjudicators need not address every piece of evidence. AAO also rejected reliance on HUBZone location as establishing substantial positive economic effects, noting Petitioner had not shown his business met HUBZone certification requirements.

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
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
• Buletini v. INS
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of L-A-C-
• USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)

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