The Petitioner, a food safety consultant, proposed to build on his experience in food packaging and manufacturing to help companies improve continuous-improvement processes and comply with food safety standards, disseminating his work through conferences and training.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“this statement is not specific or detailed enough for us to assess the potential prospective impact of it in the abstract”

“instead, to assess national importance, we focus on the "specific endeavor that the [noncitizen] proposes to undertake."”

“These articles and reports do not discuss the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor, do not help demonstrate the potential prospective impact of the endeavor on the issue of food safety”

“we conclude that the record does not contain sufficient evidence to establish that the effects of his proposed endeavor may rise to the level of national importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• other · discounted

  “this evidence relates only to the food packaging and manufacturing sector in general and not the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• business plan · credited

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

AAO withdrew the Director's finding on substantial merit (found it met), but dismissed solely on national importance, illustrating that merit and importance are separable sub-issues within prong 1. Petitioner argued endeavor should be distinguished from employment 'vehicle,' which AAO rejected as too abstract without considering implementation.

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
• 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