The Petitioner, an entrepreneur with experience in truck sales, proposed to operate a U.S.-based management consulting firm providing marketing, sales-process consulting, and hiring/headhunting services targeted at the transportation/trucking sector.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his potential customers to impact his field more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”

“the Petitioner provides no explanation for the basis of these revenue projections, nor does he elaborate on how the proposed employment numbers will impact the area of intended operations.”

“Even if the endeavor's revenue and job creation projections were more than conjecture, they nevertheless do not suggest that the endeavor would operate on a scale rising to the level of national importance.”

“the pertinent question in determining national importance is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work.”

“As digital media, business certification, or IT services were not a part of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in the record before the Director, we will not consider them for the first time on appeal.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the Petitioner provides no explanation for the basis of these revenue projections”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “a petitioner's expertise and record of success are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “much of the content of the expert opinion letter lacked relevance and probative value with respect to the national importance”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “he did not adequately explain how they establish its national importance”

  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
• Material change of endeavor · p1 — the endeavor described on appeal is not the one filed

Notable

AAO rejected the Petitioner's attempt on appeal to substitute a materially different endeavor (digital media/IT services) for the one presented before the Director, citing Katigbak and Izummi. AAO also rejected the argument that locating the business in a HUBZone established national importance, noting the record failed to show the business was actually formed or located there and that the employment scale (six jobs, three part-time) was too small to support the claim.

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. 103.3
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
• Flores v. Garland
• INA 203(b)(2)
• INA 291
• Matter of Caron Int'l
• Matter of D-R-
• Matter of E-M-
• Matter of Izummi
• Matter of Katigbak
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Matter of Otiende

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