The Petitioner sought to operate business ventures in telehealth (a digital marketing/health app) and in home building and renovation, having acquired a total of nine homes and developed a digital app.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record did not establish the national importance of the endeavor as contemplated in Dhanasar”

“he did not establish that his endeavor would result in broader implications beyond his businesses and prospective clients”

“The Petitioner, however, has not illustrated how his specific endeavor within these industries would have national importance.”

“the Petitioner contends that the projections in his business plan "are not mere guesses but are crafted from detailed research, industry standards, and analytical modeling"”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the record did not include relevant and probative evidence relating to the Petitioner's specific endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · discounted

  “he does not provide new information to support that claim”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “it is not clear how his own potential economic impact in a given local area would compare to this much larger hypothetical development”

  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
• Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor

Notable

The AAO explicitly clarifies in a footnote that a petitioner's qualifications to advance an endeavor relate to prong 2, not prong 1, correcting the Petitioner's conflation of the two. The decision also rejects the Petitioner's argument that Dhanasar's national importance criterion does not require quantitative/probative evidence, holding that objective corroboration is still required.

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. 103.5
• Matter of Coelho

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