The Petitioner, formerly a correction officer in Brazil, proposed to found and operate a security services firm in the U.S. offering prisoner resocialization consulting, security surveillance, bodyguard, and aerial surveillance services, headquartered in Florida with units in Texas and California.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the relevant question is not the overall importance of the industry in which the individual will work or the value of immigrant entrepreneurship”

“these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved”

“he has not demonstrated how operating a security consulting company as contemplated by his specific proposed endeavor rises to a level of national importance”

“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims”

“he has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and its clientele to impact his field”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “his skills, knowledge, and prior work in his field, however, relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “the Petitioner's prior work in the field... The national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands separate and apart from his education, skills, and job experience”

  AAO decision text
• certification membership · ignored
• media · discounted

  “the issue here is not the national importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”

  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

Petitioner's business plan projected implausible staffing growth (15 to 82 employees over five years) and revenue growth (to $3.94M) with no supporting basis; Director also flagged that correctional officer/jailer occupations cited by Petitioner are not professional positions lacking a bachelor's degree requirement, though this threshold-adjacent point was not addressed on appeal since threshold EB-2 was already granted by the Director. Petitioner unsuccessfully argued the Director applied a heightened evidentiary standard.

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 E-M-
• 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