The Petitioner variously described his endeavor as working as a social and community services manager, an environmental scientist, a doctoral student, a software developer addressing climate change, and founder of a food waste management consulting company.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient or consistent evidence regarding the substantive nature of his endeavor, such that we can even evaluate whether it has substantial merit or national importance”

“Here, the Petitioner has not clearly identified or explained his proposed endeavor.”

“he does not describe what these services would entail and how he specifically plans to accomplish these wide-ranging objectives”

“he has not defined what these "food waste management processes" are, what they would involve, and what specific activities he will perform to achieve these goals”

“Because he has not clearly identified or explained his proposed endeavor, we cannot even conduct a Dhanasar analysis to conclude that it has substantial merit or national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “he does not describe what these services would entail and how he specifically plans to accomplish these wide-ranging objectives”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “his appellate claims only further add to the lack of clarity”

  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

Notable

Unusual procedural history: after the combined motion to reopen/reconsider was dismissed, the Director sua sponte reopened the proceeding and issued a second denial before the appeal to AAO. The AAO's central rationale was that the endeavor itself kept shifting and multiplying across filings (social services manager, environmental scientist, doctoral student, software developer, finance contributor, food waste consultant), making it impossible to even conduct the Dhanasar prong 1 analysis, rather than a more typical finding that a clearly-defined endeavor lacked merit or importance.

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. 103.3

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