A civil engineer proposed to work as a consultant to private companies and public entities in the U.S. on water and sewer system development, water optimization, green infrastructure integration, and flood mitigation.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“These articles attest to the importance of the Petitioner's field, but the determination of national importance does not focus on the importance of the field in general”

“the articles do not mention the Petitioner or address the national importance of her specific proposed endeavor”

“The authors do not, however, specify how the Petitioner's consultancy work has potential national or even global implications within the field”

“the Petitioner proposes to be a self-employed consultant who would not directly employ any individuals”

“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would sufficiently extend beyond her potential clientele to impact her field more broadly”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “do not, however, specify how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would have broader implications to her field that rise to the level of national importance”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the articles do not mention the Petitioner or address the national importance of her specific proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• 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
• Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

AAO expressly rejected the Petitioner's argument that the Director erred by focusing on 'national implications,' holding de novo review confirmed no error even though the Director did not address every piece of evidence; cites multiple circuit cases for the proposition that adjudicators need not address every claim or piece of 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. 103.3
• 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