The Petitioner proposed to continue working as a general and operations manager/business consultant for U.S. and foreign clients, and later asserted a plan to expand his roles at an existing consulting firm and set up its new U.S. location, before later claiming (in response to an RFE) that he instead planned to found and run his own consulting and investment company.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not establish that the proposed endeavor will have national importance”

“the proposed endeavor appears to benefit the Petitioner's potential employer(s) and the clients, customers, etc., of the Petitioner's potential employer(s)”

“the business plan presents inconsistent or implausible information about the number of employees to be hired, the work location, and the company's financial viability”

“the plan to found a new business and hire new workers presents a new set of facts that cannot establish eligibility”

“General assertions regarding an industry that do not address how a specific endeavor will have broader implications or other substantial positive economic effects do not establish how a proposed endeavor may have national importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the business plan presents inconsistent or implausible information about the number of employees to be hired, the work location, and the company's financial viability”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “A petitioner's work experience relates to the second Dhanasar prong...but it does not relate to the first Dhanasar prong”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “none of the publications reference the Petitioner, nor do they address how his specific endeavor may have national importance”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
• Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
• Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking

Notable

The AAO found the Petitioner materially changed his proposed endeavor between filing and the RFE response (from continuing/expanding an existing employer role to founding his own company), invoking Matter of Katigbak and Matter of Izummi to reject reliance on facts arising after filing. The AAO also flagged internal inconsistencies in the business plan's job-creation figures and financial viability (citing Matter of Ho) as alternative grounds undermining credibility, even though it found the business plan itself could not establish eligibility as a matter of timing.

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
• Matter of Ho
• Matter of Izummi
• Matter of Katigbak
• Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
• The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
• The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
• The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
• The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution