The Petitioner proposed to own and operate a new consulting firm specializing in tech and startup market-entry, IPOs, and mergers and acquisitions between the United States and Korea, serving U.S. and Korean investors with a projected staff of up to four full-time employees.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner's endeavor would have a limited effect and would not broadly impact the financial consulting industry such as through sufficiently innovative methods or techniques”

“the record lacked evidence that 'the ripple effects' from the endeavor would have broader implications for the U.S. economy”

“our assessment of national importance does not focus on the importance of a field or issues impacting a field in general, but instead 'focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake.'”

“neither the article nor the report mentions the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor, including how his future work might impact FDI, the technology sector, or global markets more broadly.”

“the Petitioner does not elaborate as to the types of 'substantial positive economic effects' his endeavor will create in the United States”

“the economic benefits that the Petitioner claims depend on numerous factors and the Petitioner did not offer a sufficiently direct evidentiary tie between the proposed endeavor's services and the claimed economic results.”

“the Petitioner has not established that a projected staff of four employees demonstrates the endeavor's 'significant potential to employ U.S. workers'”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the Petitioner relies primarily on the monetary value of the transactions he intends to make as evidence of the endeavor's national importance, but he does not explain the national or global implications”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “neither the article nor the report mentions the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor, including how his future work might impact FDI, the technology sector, or global markets more broadly.”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “Evidence of the Petitioner's prior successes with another company does not demonstrate the national importance of that endeavor or establish that the impact of the endeavor would extend beyond the Petitioner's prospective clients.”

  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

SCOPS had already conceded substantial merit under prong 1, so the sole dispositive issue was national importance. The AAO adopted and affirmed SCOPS' analysis under Matter of Burbano rather than conducting a fully independent written analysis, while still providing individualized appellate consideration. The Petitioner's role as chief investment officer of a Korean company seeking a U.S. NYSE/NASDAQ listing was treated as a separate matter from the proposed consulting firm endeavor and thus not credited toward national importance.

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