The Petitioner sought to run his own company in Florida providing supply chain management and logistics consultancy services to U.S. businesses to optimize their logistics operations.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his specific endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work; instead, we focus on the potential prospective impact of the "specific endeavor"”

“the Petitioner did not submit evidence to establish that he has a means for funding, interested U.S.-based customers or investors, or other feasible plans for financial support in the United States”

“we cannot assess whether the business plan's stated job creation estimates of 15 jobs by year 5 are credible”

“the Petitioner has not offered a sufficiently direct connection between his company's activities and any demonstrable economic effect”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the Petitioner did not submit evidence to establish that he has a means for funding, interested U.S.-based customers or investors”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “it lacked relevance because it discussed the importance of the Petitioner's industry and past employment rather than addressing how the specific proposed endeavor would affect”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “these decisions were not published as a precedent and therefore do not bind users officers in future adjudications”

  AAO decision text
• other · ignored

  “Because the Petitioner was put on notice and given a reasonable opportunity to provide this evidence, we will not consider it for the first time on appeal”

  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
• 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
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

Petitioner materially changed the business plan during RFE response (job creation estimate reduced from 22 to 15 jobs by year 5, plus a company name change), which the Director and AAO treated as having limited evidentiary value given the requirement to establish eligibility as of filing date under Matter of Katigbak.

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)(12)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.3
• 8 C.F.R. 103.3(c)
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
• Matter of Katigbak
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Poursina v. USCIS

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