The Petitioner sought to work as CEO of an environment-focused enterprise he was creating, intended to engage in energy-efficient electrical installations and plastics recycling.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established

“As a preliminary matter, the record does not sufficiently substantiate the Petitioner's endeavor.”

“The record does not establish how he would pursue his proposed endeavor through providing janitorial services.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“the record does not sufficiently corroborate his employment with O-P-”

“This letter does not comport with the regulatory requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(l).”

“the Petitioner has not sufficiently supported his assertions on appeal that he possesses "proven expertise in functioning in a corporate executive and managerial capacity,"”

“the Petitioner made willful misrepresentations regarding his work experience and other qualifications for employment in the field of business, and his contributions to the field in order to support his claim that he is an individual of exceptional ability and of his position to advance his proposed endeavor.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “This letter does not comport with the regulatory requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(l).”

  AAO decision text
• patents · discounted

  “The Petitioner has not shown that he held "several patented technologies" relating to waste disposal or the production of new raw materials from recycled goods during his tenure with O-P-.”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “the record does not reflect that the Petitioner possessed any managerial experience at the time of his hire as a "CEO,"”

  AAO decision text
• business plan · discounted

  “The record does not establish how he would pursue his proposed endeavor through providing janitorial services.”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
• Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
• Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
• Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
• Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish

Notable

This decision centers on a formal finding of willful misrepresentation of material facts (Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i)) rather than a conventional prong-by-prong Dhanasar failure. The AAO issued a NOID regarding misrepresentation, and the ultimate denial rests on fabricated/uncorroborated employment history, patents, and executive roles used to support both exceptional-ability and 'well positioned' claims, with the misrepresentation finding treated as an independent, forward-looking inadmissibility consequence.

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. 204.5(g)(1)
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
• Matter of D-R-
• Matter of Ho
• 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