The Petitioner sought to grow his co-owned trucking and financial consulting company, serving as CEO, financial manager, and accountant, while providing financial management services to other trucking businesses.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”

“merely working in an important industry or field does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”

“the record does not establish that the Company's impact would extend beyond its clients and customers”

“none of the letters describe the on-going use of the Company's services and therefore cannot serve as a basis for the Company's assertions”

“hiring a limited number of contracted or part-time workers is not sufficient, without more, to be considered of national importance”

“the zip code where the Company is located is considered "comfortable," which is the second-highest rating (out of five possibilities)”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “The Petitioner did not provide a valuation of the Company to establish that it is a multimillion-dollar enterprise; as such this assertion is unverified.”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “this letter does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will have a broader impact on the trucking or financial management industry”

  AAO decision text
• contract revenue · discounted

  “none of agreements include complete compensation, rates of pay, or payment terms such that these agreements could establish that the Company generates revenue and creates jobs”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “the letter primarily focuses on the Petitioner's past work experience and accomplishments”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the zip code where the Company is located is considered "comfortable," which is the second-highest rating (out of five possibilities)”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
• Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

AAO distinguishes letters relevant to prong two (personal qualifications) from those relevant to prong one (endeavor's national importance), noting some letters described Petitioner's skills rather than the endeavor's broader impact. AAO also relies on the Distressed Communities Index (DCI) to reject the Petitioner's claim that his business location was economically distressed.

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
• USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)

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