The Petitioner, a marketing manager with prior experience in Brazil, proposed to start her own U.S. limited liability company providing marketing, communications, and digital marketing consulting services, initially targeting e-commerce and small businesses in her home state.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner places too much focus on the occupation of marketing managers and too little on what she will actually be doing in the proposed endeavor”

“Lacking from the record is evidence that corroborates the salient portions of the business plan and how the forecasted data will come to fruition.”

“we focus less on an industry itself or on a shortage of U.S. workers in any particular field, but instead on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

“The evidence does not suggest that the Petitioner's consulting services business would impact the marketing field more broadly.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“it does not establish that she has a similar record of success in that same field in the United States”

“none of the letters discuss achievements, recognition, or significant contributions to the field that would persuade us that she is well positioned to advance her endeavor”

“it is not so detailed that it should serve as an adequate replacement for actual business experience”

“the Petitioner did not provide documentation to corroborate her claims that she possesses sufficient funds to meet this three-month commitment”

“the commitment letter does not demonstrate she is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor”

“There is no evidence of actual ownership of a U.S-based entity, licenses to operate in the specified location, financing from outside investors, awards or grants, copies of contracts or other agreements”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how the business will realize those projections”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “none of the letters discuss achievements, recognition, or significant contributions to the field that would persuade us that she is well positioned”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “the Petitioner's experience in marketing may not be a reliable predictor that she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• funding · discounted

  “the Petitioner did not provide documentation to corroborate her claims that she possesses sufficient funds”

  AAO decision text
• contract revenue · discounted

  “the letter is not sufficiently detailed to persuade us in that direction”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• 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
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
• Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
• Education alone insufficient · p2 — degrees offered as positioning — credentials are not a track record
• Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
• Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
• No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
• Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish

Notable

AAO explicitly withdrew the Director's favorable prong-one finding sua sponte on appeal even though the petitioner was not on notice, then proceeded to analyze prong two anyway; both prong one and prong two failures are stated as independent, alternative bases for dismissal.

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)(1)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(12)
• Flores v. Garland

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