The Petitioner sought to establish and operate an SAP/ERP software consulting company in Georgia providing advisory, development, implementation, support, and training services to client businesses.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The business plan does not explain how the Petitioner's particular SAP software consulting services have the potential to result in the type of broad impact that would be commensurate with national importance.”

“the plan does not appear to provide any basis or support for the stated projections”

“these articles do not establish that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor-operating an SAP consulting firm-is nationally important”

“the Petitioner has not established that her SAP advisory services differ from those already available on the market, offer improvements or advancements that are replicable throughout the field”

“the Petitioner has not offered a sufficiently direct connection between her proposed endeavor and any demonstrable economic or social welfare effects”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the business plan does not appear to provide any basis or support for the stated projections”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “does not contain a specific description of the Petitioner's job duties, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1)”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “this evidence primarily relates to the industry or field, rather than the proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “these decisions were not published as precedent and therefore do not bind USCIS officers in future adjudications”

  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
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

AAO explicitly disagreed with the Director's narrow focus on tax revenue as the sole measure of economic impact, clarifying that Dhanasar does not require economic impact evidence and that impact can be shown other ways, but still found the business plan's growth projections unsupported and affirmed the ultimate national importance failure. AAO also distinguished the Petitioner's cited non-precedent AAO decisions, noting two predated Dhanasar and the third (a metallurgical engineer case) involved a more clearly impactful endeavor. AAO flagged a threshold EB-2 documentary deficiency (job duties in experience letter) for future proceedings without disturbing the Director's favorable threshold finding.

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
• 8 C.F.R. 103.3(c)
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1)
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of L-A-C-

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