The Petitioner proposed to open and operate a business training and consulting company in Florida, offering strategic, financial, accounting, coaching, and people-management services to companies and leaders, in person or online.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner did not provide further detail on the specific prospective occupation or proposed endeavor that he would focus on to illustrate the nature of the work that he would perform during his day-to-day work activities.”

“the record does not include a plan or other indication of how the Petitioner will operate a "business training and consulting business" that will impact business at the level of national importance contemplated under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.”

“Absent probative evidence to show the realistic potential of the Petitioner's company to operate at all, it is not evident that the company will generate revenue to create jobs, to expand, or to otherwise notably impact the economy”

“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work, the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy... would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the record does not include a plan or other indication of how the Petitioner will operate a "business training and consulting business" that will impact business at the level of national importance”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “indicates that the Petitioner has extensive experience, the record does not include a plan or other indication of how the Petitioner will operate”

  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

Notable

AAO emphasized that the Petitioner's general objections on appeal, without identifying specific errors by the Director, were insufficient to overcome the denial; the appeal was resolved entirely on prong one, with prongs two and three expressly reserved as unnecessary under Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C-.

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.

• 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