The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an event planning company in the United States that would offer event-planning services and publish a marketing magazine featuring advertisements for related vendor services such as catering.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“We agree with the Director's determination that the creation of 10 jobs within five years is not sufficient to show a substantial positive economic effect commensurate with national importance.”

“the Petitioner has not shown that her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her company and its clientele to impact the event planning industry or the U.S. economy at a level commensurate with national importance”

“the expert opinion letter is of little probative value as it overstates the evidence in the record and conflates the importance of the event planning industry overall with the national importance of the Petitioner's specific endeavor”

“we conclude the business plan does not sufficiently demonstrate that the cultural impact will extend beyond the attendees at the Petitioner's events to benefit society at a level commensurate with national importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “does not sufficiently demonstrate that the cultural impact will extend beyond the attendees at the Petitioner's events”

  AAO decision text
• media · discounted

  “does not establish that her proposed endeavor of operating an event planning company will have national or global implications within that field”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “these letters do not describe the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or help establish its national importance”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “these letters do not describe the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or help establish its national importance”

  AAO decision text
• certification membership · discounted

  “the record does not establish the number of individuals she would reach nor the impact her mentorship would have”

  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

Notable

The AAO explicitly acknowledged the Director's analysis was incomplete/could be read too narrowly (limiting national importance to economic effects) but still affirmed the denial after its own de novo review of all evidence, including evidence originally submitted to support an exceptional-ability claim that the Director never reached.

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 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