The Petitioner claimed to work as an 'education administrator' but described her actual plan as directing her own consultancy company providing business-restructuring, marketing, IT, and administrative consulting services to schools in Florida.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not establish how the proposed endeavor, as described at the time of filing, may have national importance.”

“the record does not establish how the staff of 14 workers apparently at the Petitioner's current or former private residence, and other unspecified indirect jobs at unknown locations, demonstrate the type of "significant potential to employ U.S. workers"”

“neither the Petitioner's prior academic or work experience nor "industry reports and articles" that provide generalized information related to education are material to whether the proposed endeavor may have national importance.”

“the record does not reconcile how the Petitioner's consultancy company ... would involve planning, directing, or coordinating student instruction”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the record does not establish how those consultancy services may have the type of national or even global implications”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “does not inform how the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake may have national importance”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “do not address the Petitioner, the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake, and how the endeavor may have the type of broader implications”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · ignored

  “they present a new set of facts that cannot-and do not-establish eligibility”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• 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

The appeal brief appears to contain boilerplate/copy-paste errors referencing an unrelated male petitioner's 'business endeavor' and international-trade entrepreneurship claims that the AAO found inconsistent with and irrelevant to this Petitioner's stated 'education administrator' endeavor, which it treated as an improper new set of facts under Matter of Katigbak/Izummi. The AAO also flagged an address discrepancy suggesting a possible notification-of-change-of-address violation under 8 C.F.R. 265.1.

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.

• 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(1)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.3
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of Izummi
• Matter of Katigbak
• Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
• The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
• The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
• The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
• The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution