The Petitioner proposed to operate a company in the human resources industry providing workforce staffing, recruitment, and human capital development services to U.S. employers, claiming alignment with federal workforce priorities.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner did not show that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and its clientele to impact his field, the human resources industry, societal welfare, federal initiatives, or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”

“working in an important field, including one that is the subject of federal priorities, is insufficient to establish the proposed endeavor's national importance.”

“he does not explain or point to specific documents in the record that establish his specific work would directly and meaningfully impact these areas.”

“these letters do not explain how their individual use of the Petitioner's services provide benefits that would extend beyond the companies utilizing his services to impact the field, region, or nation more broadly.”

“the Petitioner 'has not offered sufficient evidence that his endeavor offers Florida or the United States a substantial economic benefit through employment levels or business activity.'”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the Petitioner had not demonstrated through the evidence, including his business plan, letters, and articles, that the potential prospective impact of his proposed endeavor stands to offer broader implications to the field, region, or nation”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “these letters do not explain how their individual use of the Petitioner's services provide benefits that would extend beyond the companies utilizing his services to impact the field, region, or nation more broadly.”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “Aside from generally claiming that his endeavor 'aligns with recognized national workforce shortages' and that his services 'would contribute directly to improving workforce efficiency and access,' he does not explain or point to specific documents”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · discounted

  “Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does not constitute the submission of 'new facts.'”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the Petitioner's general assertion we failed to properly apply the preponderance of the evidence standard by dismissing various pieces of evidence, such as his financial projections, job-creation analyses, government data, expert opinion, and employer statements, also does not persuade us”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• 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
• 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

This is a combined motion decision; the AAO had already dismissed the underlying appeal. The motion to reopen was dismissed for failure to present new facts — the petitioner resubmitted the same business plan, reports, support letters, and expert opinion letter. The motion to reconsider was dismissed because disagreement with the weight afforded evidence does not establish legal error. The AAO explicitly rejected the petitioner's argument that it conflated 'national importance' with 'nationwide scale,' clarifying that the deficiency was evidentiary rather than definitional. The petitioner's invocation of the American Rescue Plan Act, CHIPS and Science Act, and DOL/DOC workforce programs was rejected under the field-importance-conflated-with-endeavor rationale. Only prong 1 was substantively addressed; prongs 2 and 3 were not reached.

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