The Petitioner sought to develop and manage a marketing consulting agency providing brand strategy, digital marketing, and related services to small and medium-sized companies, with planned expansion to multiple U.S. branch offices.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not show it has national importance”

“The Petitioner continues to rely on industry reports and articles, as well as her experience in marketing, without establishing how her specific endeavor will have "broader implications."”

“the business plan provides no explanation for the basis of these projections and does not elaborate on how the proposed employment numbers will impact the area of intended operations.”

“the Petitioner has not established how her operations will result in "substantial positive economic effects" for the proposed areas.”

“Dr. V-L- does not discuss the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or her business plan, and instead focuses primarily on the importance of the marketing industry.”

“the record does not establish the Petitioner's impact to the field beyond her immediate clients.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the business plan provides no explanation for the basis of these projections”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

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

  AAO decision text
• contract revenue · discounted

  “the actual earnings noted in the 2020 tax returns are less than one fifth the amount projected in the business plan”

  AAO decision text
• media · discounted

  “reliance on background information and statistics concerning entrepreneurs, business development, and the marketing field generally are not persuasive”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

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

  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
• Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

AAO noted the Director's decision mistakenly stated the business plan reflected 24 jobs rather than 81; also noted (not as basis for decision) that actual earnings from the pre-existing business were far below business plan projections, and that no employees had been hired consistent with projections. AAO also rejected the Petitioner's HUBZone-based national importance argument, finding no evidence the business would qualify for or participate in the program.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of Caron Int'l
• Matter of D-R-
• 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