The Petitioner proposed either helping U.S. companies improve their business operations using her Brazilian business experience, or establishing and operating her own frozen-food supply company in the United States.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner's five-year projections of five workers and $300,000 in revenues does not indicate that the business would have a significant national or regional impact”

“the record does not sufficiently demonstrate "other substantial positive economic effects" of the proposed business”

“she has not demonstrated that she would improve enough U.S. businesses to make an economic impact of regional or national importance”

“The plan's lack of detail, in part, prevents it from demonstrating national importance”

“This unresolved issue casts doubt on the amount of time she would devote to her proposed U.S. endeavor”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “does not indicate that the business would have a significant national or regional impact”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · credited
• other · discounted

  “lacks supporting evidence establishing the inclusion of the Petitioner's proposed business in a HUBZone”

  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
• Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

AAO addressed two distinct, materially different proposed endeavors (consulting vs. own frozen-food business) despite Izummi/Katigbak bar on post-filing material change, because the Director's RFE had already put Petitioner on notice; ultimately found substantial merit but not national importance for either version, reserving prongs 2 and 3 under Bagamasbad.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
• Matter of Ho
• Matter of Izummi
• Matter of Katigbak

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