The petitioner, an industrial engineer, proposed to create a multidisciplinary engineering company in the U.S. to facilitate real estate and construction engineering projects, focusing on increasing housing supply.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner also added information to other parts of the business plan, some of which is salient to his eligibility.”

“This adversely impacts the Petitioner's eligibility under the first prong as he relies on job creation to support his claims that the proposed endeavor has national importance.”

“In focusing on the construction and engineering industries, the Petitioner has not established the endeavor will substantially benefit and impact the field more broadly.”

“Lacking from the record is an indication of the extent to which the Petitioner's endeavor would make these contributions”

“Further, through the business plan and the remaining evidence, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the "significant potential to employ U.S. workers," which is a focal point in Dhanasar.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition that has already been filed in an effort to make an apparently deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements.”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “Simple alignment or shared common aspects with statutes relating to an industry are not sufficient to meet the first prong's national importance portion.”

  AAO decision text
• citations publications · discounted

  “none of them addressed the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”

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

Notable

AAO dedicates substantial discussion to rejecting a procedural due-process argument (based on Buletini v. INS) that the Director failed to discuss all evidence, applying a harmless-error/prejudice framework before reaching the merits. AAO also flags an unaddressed material-change issue (Matter of Izummi) regarding a revised business plan submitted with the RFE response, treating it as an independent basis undermining prong 1. Decision explicitly states each basis is an independent and alternative ground for dismissal.

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.

• Buletini v. INS
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of E-M-
• Matter of Izummi

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