The Petitioner sought to build a company providing asset integrity management and consulting services to companies across various industries, relying on his expertise in maintenance engineering.

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; but rather "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

“he has not adequately explained or demonstrated how his expertise differs from or improves upon those readily available and already in use in the United States.”

“Nor does the evidence demonstrate that the use of the Petitioner's methodologies will reach beyond benefitting his own company and its clients”

“the Petitioner has not established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his endeavor will have a broader impact on his field.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

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

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the weight of the evidence supports a determination that the article is not only inauthentic but that he submitted it with intent to deceive”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “is not sufficient to overcome that determination”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “he does not attempt to provide an explanation for his continued reference to a case study that ... he was not assigned”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · discounted

  “The Petitioner responded to the NOID and provided more evidence”

  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
• 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

Notable

This decision is unusual in that the AAO issued a NOID during the appeal and made an explicit finding of willful misrepresentation under 212(a)(6)(C)(i), based on an extensive fraud investigation into inauthentic emails and a fabricated magazine interview submitted in the Petitioner's prior 2019 and 2021 petitions, and also found the Petitioner made a willful misrepresentation on a subsequent tourist visa application. The AAO also rejected an implicit ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim for failing to meet the Lozada requirements. The prong 1 denial was adopted from the Director's decision, and prongs 2 and 3 were expressly reserved as unnecessary given the dispositive prong 1 failure.

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
• Matter of D-R-
• Matter of Ho
• 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