The Petitioner, a real estate entrepreneur, sought to run a Florida-based real estate company that would recruit small and medium investors to build 20 housing units in a designated SBA HUBZone, targeting lower-income residents.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“working for any company in need of his superior business administration, project management, and business development skills, especially in the real estate industry.”

“rather than the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work.”

“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company, business partnerships, and clientele to impact the real estate field more broadly”

“he has not shown that his company's future staffing levels and business activity stand to provide substantial economic benefits in Florida, where the company is headquartered, or in the United States.”

“it has not provided evidence to substantiate the projected rate of growth.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “it has not provided evidence to substantiate the projected rate of growth.”

  AAO decision text
• contract revenue · discounted

  “he has not explained how the benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”

  AAO decision text
• other · credited

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

AAO expressly rejects the Petitioner's use of the SBA HUBZone program as evidence of national importance, noting he concedes he does not even qualify to participate in it. The decision also frames the dismissal as resting on multiple independent alternate grounds despite reaching only prong 1.

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.

• INA 203(b)(2)
• 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