The Petitioner, a Brazilian entrepreneur, sought to continue operating and expanding his Florida-based company providing digital solutions (a virtual concierge system and property management system) for vacation rental property management companies, and to facilitate cross-border business between the U.S., Brazil, and Latin America.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“much of the Petitioner's evidence relates to the importance of the entrepreneurialism and technology, rather than his specific proposed endeavor”

“these agreements... are with businesses based solely in the area of Florida”

“the tax returns in the record do not support the predictions in the Petitioner's business plans with respect to staffing and sales”

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation”

“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and its clientele to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more broadly”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “he did not adequately explain how these sales forecasts were calculated”

  AAO decision text
• contract revenue · discounted

  “do not support the claimed global reach of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “we may give an opinion less weight if it is not in accord with other information in the record”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “this does not necessarily establish the national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · ignored

  “any evidence dated after the filing date cannot be considered in this case”

  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
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

Director had already conceded prong 2 (well-positioned) in the RFE response stage, but AAO declined to disturb or discuss this finding, resolving the appeal solely on prong 1 national importance; AAO expressly noted an inconsistency between the Petitioner's initial stated endeavor (cross-border Brazil/Latin America business facilitation) and his RFE-stage description (Florida property management), using this inconsistency against him under Matter of Ho.

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
• Matter of Ho
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Poursina v. USCIS

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